Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Object. (Hon. Members:)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees clue on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if that Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

EC Social Action Programme

Mr. Conway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the cost to British employers of immediate implementation of all provisions of the European Commission's social action programme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): It is not possible to estimate the cost of implementation of all the social action programme as only half the proposals have so far been published. However, it is estimated that the implementation of the directives on working time, part-time work and pregnant women would alone cost United Kingdom employers at least £3·5 billion.

Mr. Conway: I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his 50th birthday which he celebrated on Sunday. He is wearing considerably better than many of us. While my right hon. and learned Friend is reflecting on that milestone in his life and on future policy, will he tell us whether under these proposals nearly 2 million of our low-paid citizens would be forced to pay national insurance contributions? Would not that be a retrograde step and is it not surprising that Labour would support such a policy?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind wishes. One might have thought it surprising for Labour to support a measure that would place such a burden on those on low pay, but nothing about Labour's attitude to those on low incomes or low pay any longer surprises me. Later today we shall debate some of Labour's proposals which would wreak havoc on those on low incomes and low pay, and would lead to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that many men in my constituency who are celebrating their 50th birthday are not anywhere near being in the same happy circumstances as the right hon. and learned Gentleman because his policies have put many of them out of jobs? Is he further aware that of all the post-war holders of his office he has the worst record on unemployment? Did that fact help him to celebrate his 50th birthday?

Mr. Howard: The original question is about the social action programme. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that that programme, which is fully supported by his party, would add to the ranks of the unemployed. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about the plight of the unemployed, which I am sure he is, as am I, he should start persuading his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to stop pursuing policies which would gratuitously make unemployment worse.

Mr. Irvine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Commission has introduced the social action programme under the provisions of article 100A with a view to making it possible for the programme to be enacted by a qualified majority only?

Does he agree that article 100A is not the appropriate article? What steps is he taking to challenge the European Commission on that point?

Mr. Howard: Not all the proposals in the social action programme are being brought forward under article 100A, but my hon. Friend is right to say that some are, and they are being introduced on the most tenuous basis. I make it quite clear in the Social Affairs Council of Ministers that that is the case. If necessary, at the end of the day we shall not hesitate to take these matters to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only figure that he has quoted today that has any credibility is that of his 50th birthday, and even that we shall check? Is he aware also that, as with the minimum wage, the figures that he has quoted about the cost of the social action programme are completely bogus? Why is it that the Government stand alone within the Community in setting their face steadfastly against any progress being made for employees at their places of work? Why are they so determined to undermine the conditions of Britons only? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is no longer Prime Minister?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It never ceases to amaze me that the Labour party clings to such myths. Why does not the hon. Gentleman try to ascertain what really happens at the Council of Ministers, including what happened at its last meeting? We were not isolated. We were not alone. Other member states are finding it increasingly difficult to sign up for directives. They are becoming increasingly aware of the problems that will be posed for them. They are frequently grateful to the United Kingdom Government for the constructive role that we consistently play in the Council's deliberations.

Executive Job Clubs

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he will take to increase the number of executive job clubs; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): On 19 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced a further 40,000 places this year in job clubs. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the Employment Service to take the needs of unemployed white-collar workers and executives into account when it puts this extra provision into effect.

Mr. Colvin: That is, indeed, good news. The evidence from the Southampton executive job club, which serves my constituency, is that it is doing well. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us a little more about the national picture. How many people will be able to enrol in job clubs and how many have done so? What is the percentage of placements back in employment? Has the Department undertaken any research to judge the cost-effectiveness of executive job clubs compared with Professional and Executive Recruitment, PER, which they replaced?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right about the success of the Southampton executive job club. There was a 68 per


cent. positive outcome in that job club during 1990–91. Overall, there are more than 1,000 job clubs with 156,000 people making use of them. Of those who have gone through the clubs, 16 per cent. have gone into professional and managerial jobs. There are 30 executive clubs throughout the country and they are proving to be extremely successful. We shall, obviously, monitor the progress of the clubs. We are conducting research to see how and in what way we should expand the provision. As I have said, the clubs seem to have been extremely successful.

Mr. Madden: What emergency action is the Department of Employment taking to give advice and help to the staff of BICC, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, who face redundancy and great uncertainty about their future? What other help and advice is being given to safeguard the employment of those employed by small businesses who are dependent on the bank?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have his initials wrong. Obviously, it is extremely serious when something takes place of the sort to which he has referred. He is right to draw attention to the full range of facilities that are operated by the Employment Service, which can help many people who find themselves in difficulties with employment. The hon. Gentleman's advice, that they should make use of the service, should be taken.

Mr. Burns: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that a new job club is shortly to be opened in Chelmsford? Does he agree—[Interruption.]—that job clubs have an extremely good record on successfully helping people back into jobs?

Mr. Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his positive attitude to job clubs. I noticed that it attracted some derision from Opposition Members. They should reflect on the considerable help that has been given to people through job clubs. Before they laugh and sneer at the clubs, they should consider the serious contribution that job clubs are making.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all employees have a right to a written statement of terms and conditions within 13 weeks of commencement of employment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Employees already have such a right under current employment protection legislation.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that citizens advice bureaux throughout Britain have evidence that not only are employers ignoring the requirement to give a written statement of terms and conditions, but some are deliberately not meeting that requirement? Is it not time for those who are employed for 16 hours a week also to have such a written statement?

Mr. Forth: If, as the hon. Gentleman alleges, there is widespread breaching of the requirement, employees should go to industrial tribunals which are well equipped to deal with such problems. I hope that citizens advice bureaux are giving the correct advice in that regard. The

hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is an EC directive covering that point which, regrettably, has not yet been passed because the European Parliament could not give an opinion. However, it is almost certain that that directive will become EC law in the foreseeable future. It will make certain changes, including the one that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that 151 Members of the House are sponsored by trade unions? Does that make them delegates rather than representatives and are they entitled to a written contract of employment?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which I shall consider and take due account of.

Mr. Skinner: But what about the 250 Tory Members of Parliament who are lining their pockets with directorships, 62 of whom are Lloyd's names and wanted to be bailed out by the taxpayer? What about their terms and conditions? At the next general election the Tories had better set up a training agency to search for jobs for all those Tory Members who will lose their seats, because they will need one.

Mr. Forth: I am impressed with the hon. Gentleman's care and concern for the categories of people whom he has just mentioned. Any people who find themselves in difficult circumstances should go to him because, obviously, he is anxious to help them.

Training (Young People)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Government training places for young people were available in (a) 1978–79 and (b) the last year for which he has figures.

Mr. Jackson: In 1978–79 there were on average about 7,000 young people receiving training in the youth opportunities programme compared with more than 300,000 now in youth training.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Those figures clearly show a real commitment to training. Does my hon. Friend recall that when we first gave young people a guarantee that at 16 they could have a job, a place in higher education or a place on a training scheme, the Opposition wanted young people to continue to have the option of voluntary idleness? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Opposition and the trade unions have consistently blocked every move that the Government have ever made to provide for our young people? Will he further confirm that they have never given the kind of guarantees or brought forward the initiatives that have come from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We saw an exhibition of that in the Opposition's sneering during an answer to a question about job clubs a few minutes ago. The Government have substantially increased expenditure on youth training, with positive results. Of those who complete youth training, 89 per cent. go into jobs, further education or further training, and 67 per cent. of them obtain vocational qualifications. It is time to stop knocking youth training and it would be useful if the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) took


this opportunity to condemn yesterday's vote at the Transport and General Workers Union to boycott youth training.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that he loses all credibility when he sounds so complacent? Does he realise that yesterday the British Printing Industries Federation pulled out of youth training and that two clearing banks and many large companies, such as Mothercare, have pulled out? There is now a crisis in youth training. As I told the Minister two months ago, hundreds of young people are leaving school in the London borough of Newham and the east end of London without jobs and without youth training places. As everyone, including the local training and enterprise councils, says, we need more cash now. What will the Under-Secretary of State do about it?

Mr. Jackson: Everyone agrees that the local character of the training and enterprise councils is one of their great strengths, but clearly that constitutes some problems for training providers that are organised on a national basis, of which there are some 140. That is why the Department installed the training national providers unit which has been helping to broker the relations between the national providers and the TECs. Only 5 per cent. of the national providers, 10 out of 140, have failed to establish a new relationship with the TECs, but they are all continuing with their training. We regret losing them, but the benefits that come from the localisation of the TECs are considerable.

Mr. Harris: I welcome those figures, which show that there has been truly spectacular progress. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that a problem is beginning to develop? Some young people are unable to obtain training, simply because they cannot find placements. The problem is especially bad in my constituency, St. Ives in west Cornwall, where young people cannot find employers to give them training. Will my hon. Friend consult the TECs about that problem, which, I fear, will worsen over the next few months?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right, as, indeed, was the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). We are firmly committed to the YT guarantee, although we do not yet know how many school leavers there will be or how many people will enter the programme. Placements will, obviously, be affected by the current economic situation. We are, however, keeping the position under review and we are already in contact with the TECs.

Mr. Fatchett: Was not the Under-Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) remarkably complacent? When large organisations, such as the British Printing Industries Federation, the Midland bank and Mothercare, are pulling out of YT schemes, should not the Government do more than simply express concern, as the hon. Gentleman did? He washed his hands of the problem. Is it not time for action and for the Under-Secretary of State to recognise the difficulties to which those employers have drawn attention? Does he appreciate that it is impossible for them to negotiate with the 82 TECs? Or is he happy to allow YT to wither on the vine as a result of the cuts that have already been made in the budget?

Mr. Jackson: That was quite a routine. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to accuse anyone of complacency, he should take account of the complacency that he is exhibiting in the face of yesterday's vote by the Transport and General Workers Union, and of his failure to take the opportunity that I offered him to dissociate himself from it. The Government are now spending £844 million on youth training. In 1979, when Labour was last in power, it spent £7·4 million. Labour Members are in no position to lecture us.

Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the small number of training places that were available in the late 1970s was because industry had been subjected to so many years of Labour Government? The Government of those days sought to support restrictive practices, to restrict prices and interfere with company management. Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst news on earth for any trainee would be news of the return of a Labour Government?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the position was even worse than he suggested: the Labour Government paid no attention whatever to the need for youth training.

Employment Action Programme

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of places available per parliamentary constituency through his employment action programme.

Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland will shortly be invited to submit proposals to deliver employment action in their local areas. As parliamentary constituency boundaries and TEC and LEC boundaries are not the same, it will not be possible to say what the distribution of employment action places will be within parliamentary constituencies.

Mr. Foulkes: I thought that the Secretary of State would shy away from answering my question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country many projects exist that could benefit from an employment action programme? Many more places are needed, however, and those involved in the programme need to be paid the rate for the job, instead of being used as slave labour.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the utter inconsistency of the two points that he has made. If the scheme were introduced with those involved being paid the rate for the job, it would be possible to provide roughly one third of the number of places that we shall provide next year.

Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to support the moves being made through the programme to combat agism? Does he agree that, given the current demographic changes, it is important to look for opportunities to employ the over-50s, as well as to carry out the necessary work for the youth training scheme?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Jobcentres and the Employment Service generally are playing a full part in countering the difficulties that those


who are over 50 experience in finding jobs. I now have a personal interest in that matter. The private sector is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of its role and it is taking its responsibilities increasingly seriously.

Mr. McLeish: Why is it that, when faced with 965,000 people unemployed for over 26 weeks, the Government can find in this financial year 30,000 places only? Why is it, when faced with a bill for £16·4 billion to support the unemployed, the Government can provide only £110 million to get the unemployed back to work? Is the Secretary of State happy with that or will he continue to be the apologist for poverty pay in Britain?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, full well that in this financial year we will provide through our various programmes help for an additional 190,000 people, over and above the 650,000 we are already helping. Next year we shall help a quarter of a million people in addition to those 650,000 whom we would be helping anyway—that is a total of 900,000 people. We will not take any lectures on the funding of these programmes from the Labour party when we know that none of these matters comes within the two immediate spending priorities that are the only things to which the shadow Chief Secretary will commit herself and her party.

EC Employment Directives

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations over the EC's draft directives on employment.

Mr. Howard: Steady progress is being made on certain aspects of the European Commission's social action programme, particularly in the areas of health and safety, and free movement of workers. However, many member states continue to have major difficulties with the substance and proposed legal base of other proposals, notably in the area of employee rights.

Mr. Coombs: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is a growing awareness among the Governments of the European Community member states that the implications of several of the draft directives, including those on working time and part-time work, need to be studied extremely carefully before any approval can be given? Does he think it strange that the only part of Europe where there appears to be a continuing willingness to sign up to anything and everything is the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right, but, of course, what he describes is entirely typical of the Labour party's blind attitude to such matters. It is significant that neither of the draft directives that my hon. Friend mentioned was even discussed at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Council.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that no EC directive on employment contains a clause that would allow the sacking of a nurse or doctor who spoke up for a patient rather than in support of management cuts? Will he now take the opportunity to condemn the sacking of Graham Pink, a nurse who spoke out for patient care rather than for cuts in hospital services?

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the facts and circumstances of that particular case. It is only a person as irresponsible as someone sitting on the Labour Benches who would expect anyone to comment on the circumstances of a particular case without having full knowledge of them. It was a Conservative Government who first introduced the right for workers to take a complaint for unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, so we shall not take any lectures from the Labour party on that matter either.

Mr. Bevan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the social action programme could threaten 100,000 jobs in this country?

Mr. Howard: I fear that my hon. Friend's estimate is a considerable underestimate. The damage that the social action programme would do to employment would be much graver than my hon. Friend suggests, but, of course, that matter is regarded as of no consequence by the employment vandals on the Labour Benches.

EC Unemployment

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average rate of unemployment in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jackson: Using the latest available internationally comparable unemployment rates, the average rate of unemployment in the European Community was 8·7 per cent. in May 1991.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only large European Community countries that have a statutory national minimum wage, which the Labour party seems to want, are France and Spain, which both have higher unemployment than us?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is part of the evidence of the job destruction effects of a minimum wage policy. The only people who doubt those effects are Opposition spokesmen, who display an attitude of blithe unconcern about the obvious consequence of the policy that they are following. Unemployment in Britain is below the EC average.

Mr. James Lamond: Is not it remarkable that after 12 years of Tory Administration the economy of this great prosperous industrial nation is so fragile that, on the Government's admission, it cannot sustain the basic human right of a minimum wage?

Mr. Jackson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he might like to reflect on the implications of a 15·4 per cent. unemployment rate in Spain.

Mr. Butterfill: As my hon. Friend is responsible for tourism, does he agree that a minimum wage, such as in Spain, would profoundly damage the tourism industry? Could not it lead to the unemployment and empty hotels that are evident throughout Benidorm?

Mr. Jackson: The connection between minimum wages and the loss of employment opportunities is palpable, obvious and has been demonstrated. Opposition Members should recognise that.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister trying to contend that unemployment in Britain is not high and rising? As the


recession is likely to last longer than the Government predicted, is he now prepared to put some weight behind measures designed to ensure that people get work by seeing that more effort is made to rebuild schools and hospitals and to insulate homes?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the employment action programme that was announced a couple of weeks ago by my right hon. and learned Friend and which will provide such opportunities. Unemployment in Britain is below the European Community average. It is rising higher because we are at a different stage in the economic cycle, but last month's unemployment increase was the lowest since January, which gives some reason for hope.

Dock Labour Scheme

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the effect of the end of the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Forth: None, Sir. The complete absence of such representations is further proof that the fears of damage to the economy, increasing industrial problems and general dislocation in ports that were expressed vociferously by the Opposition during the passage of the Dock Work Act 1989 were without substance or foundation.

Mr. Nicholls: May I commend to my hon. Friend a paper produced for Aims of Industry entitled "The End of the Dock Labour Scheme—An Interim Appraisal", which contains clear and irrefutable evidence that the abolition of the scheme has been of much benefit to workers in the ports industry and to the nation as a whole? Does not my hon. Friend find it bizarre that, in the face of that compelling evidence, the Labour party refuses to deny that if it took office it would reintroduce the scheme?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the matter is great, is absolutely right. The publication to which he refers shows that new life has been breathed into several ports since the disappearance of the dock labour scheme. Many areas, communities and people can look forward to a happier future thanks to the measures that were introduced so courageously by, among others, my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that no Labour Members—official spokesmen or otherwise—have sought to distance themselves from the deplorable dock labour scheme, which cost so many jobs. I invite them to do so today.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not there something wrong with the Minister's records? To my knowledge, dockers in Leith have protested strongly about the ending of the dock labour scheme, which benefited employers and employees. What has gone wrong with the information that the hon. Gentleman collates? Not only Leith dockers but the labour movement are complaining about the ending of the dock labour scheme. Its restoration may not be official Labour policy, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that one person in particular—me—will argue for that restoration to be included in the Labour party manifesto.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted that a Labour Member has now said unequivocally that he at least wants a return to the old scheme. If Leith has a certain reputation in the

House for eccentricity, that is perhaps understandable, but there are few who would agree with the hon. Gentleman, because all the evidence, from Hull, Liverpool and nearly all the great ports of the country, is that since the abolition of the scheme, with the willing support of dock workers, we have witnessed a revival of activity in the ports, which are offering a new level of service and efficiency and are bringing customers back. I hope that any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who take the view that he described will think again and if they look positively at the opportunities facing Leith and them, they will see a revival of their opportunities.

Minimum Wage

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the cost and effect on unemployment of introducing a minimum wage; and if he is reconsidering his policy on this matter.

Mr. Howard: A national legal minimum wage set at two thirds of median male hourly rate, as proposed by the Labour party, could cost up to 2 million jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if higher-paid workers were successful in fully restoring pay differentials. That policy makes economic nonsense. My policy is to continue to point out at every opportunity the devastating consequences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."]—which that minimum wage proposal would bring about.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. No doubt the country will be shocked by the information contained in it. Has he any useful advice about the minimum wage to offer to the Leader of the Opposition, who will tomorrow be addressing the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Howard: It was interesting to see the extent to which Labour Members were keen to disavow what is official Labour party policy and is stated in clear words in all Labour's policy documents. Perhaps it is not too late for the Leader of the Opposition to realise the absurdity of his policy and to abandon it when he talks tomorrow to the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Secretary of State appreciate how distasteful it is to listen to Conservative Members, most of whom have outside jobs which more than double their parliamentary salaries, continually seeking to block any improvement in the wages and conditions of millions of British workers who suffer some of the lowest wages in the European Community?

Mr. Howard: That kind of sneer will not help to resolve the issue of how we can best improve wages and conditions. We can best help to do that by paying family credit to those on low pay, rather than substituting for low pay no pay, which is the policy of the Labour party.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of experience in the United States, which introduced a minimum wage law in 1947, since when unemployment among the ethnic minorities and especially black unskilled people has continued to rise, so much so that many American states have abandoned the minimum wage law and introduced a right to work law?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Every independent study has demonstrated that the policy would


cost jobs. The only point on which they disagree is how many jobs would be lost. When will the Labour party see sense and abandon its absurd policy?

Mr. Blair: When will Conservative Members admit that they are talking nonsense about Labour's policy? They have doubled unemployment and are now presiding over the fastest rise in unemployment in Europe—[Interruption.]—and do not know what to do about it. The most interesting point about the Major Government is that while they pour scorn on, and deride the notion of, protection for some of the poorest paid in our society— often women, many of them working in conditions of great hardship for £3·40 an hour—they will not lift a finger when the chairmen of privatised industries pay themselves an extra £80,000 or £90,000 a year. That is the true face of Majorism.

Mr. Howard: The simple answer is that we protect those on low pay through family credit. The Opposition would simply destroy their jobs.

Industrial and Vocational Training

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress with industrial and vocational training.

Mr. Howard: Progress has been substantial. Employers have been put in the lead of training locally and at industry level and are more committed than ever to raising the levels of skills in the work force. Employer training has increased by 85 per cent. over the past six years. Major reforms of education and youth training are raising the attainment of young people. Good progress is being made on the reform of vocational qualifications.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned 1Friend confirm that the evidence from the latest survey carried out by the Confederation of British Industry is that private industry is maintaining its commitment to training? In view of the representations made to me by Somerset training and enterprise council which I have communicated to him, will he confirm that the Government will maintain their commitment to provide the resources necessary to deliver the youth training guarantee?

Mr. Howard: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation. We shall continue to work in partnership with the training and enterprise councils to provide training of ever-higher quality.

Mr. Blair: When we are receiving reports from around the country that youth training and employment training have waiting lists because so many people are trying to get on them, when, even after last month's announcement, funds for training are being cut—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—and when the Department of Employment's review—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question. That would help.

Mr. Blair: When the Department's own review says that the relationship between TECs and the Government cannot be sustained as a result of funding cuts, why does

not the Secretary of State take responsibility for the crisis in training which the Government have caused and about which they are doing nothing?

Mr. Howard: What the hon. Gentleman should be considering is yesterday's vote by his trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—to boycott youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils. In view of his utter failure to dissuade even his own trade union from boycotting and turning its back on training, will the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, today undertake not to accept a penny more of tainted money from that union until it abandons its boycott of training?

Mr. Paice: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest CBI survey shows that three quarters of firms expect to maintain or increase their investment in training? How does that compare with the proposals for a tax on employment to pay for training— would not that cost more jobs and is not it typical of all the policies of that lot on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is still the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition to pull for compulsion at every turn. Their policies on this issue would be as disastrous as the training levy boards of the past.

Training Opportunities

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about training opportunities for (a) those with special needs and (b) women returnees.

Mr. Jackson: Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their business plans how they intend to offer suitable training to people with special needs and those returning to the labour market. Those plans form the basis of their contract with my Department and a substantial proportion of the £1·7 billion spent through TECs on employment training and youth training go to people with special needs and to women returners.
In addition, we have the £35 million of resources for ET targeted at those with special needs which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the other day.

Mr. Hain: Does the Minister accept that the gap between what the Government say in the House about training and what is happening throughout the country is incredible? In west Wales, for example, the number of training weeks has been cut by 43,000, or 21 per cent., including 38 places for special needs trainees. The number of courses for part-time training has been chopped all over Neath, depriving particularly women returnees of much-needed opportunities. Those women cannot take up full-time courses because of child care responsibilities. Is not it time the Government admitted that their training programme is an absolute disgrace and a shambles?

Mr. Jackson: We need no lectures from the Labour party. We are spending two and a half times as much in real terms on training, vocational education and enterprise as was spent when the Labour party was last in office.


Every time Labour Members make a statement about these matters, their expenditure commitments are qualified by references to "resources allowing".

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Griffiths: The Prime Minister must be aware of the 253 per cent. pay increase of the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity—yet another in a long line of outrageous pay increases to the chiefs of former publicly owned industries. Is not it true that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to do anything about those pay rises because of his friends and former colleagues on the boards of those companies, who are stuffing their pockets with money as fast as it can be snatched from the long-suffering consumer?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman gives a prize example of Labour humbug. The Labour party's policy document "Opportunity Britain" states:
British industry now needs a long term commitment from Government … but not in the form of second guessing industry".
The hon. Gentleman should remember that.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, so far this year, his Government have supported the creation of 4,500 new jobs in Wales and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality? Every announcement of such good news has been greeted contemptuously by Labour Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactics of the luddite left are the surest, fastest way of undermining investor confidence?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has just returned from the United States with a significant package of job-creating projects, promising more than 500 new jobs. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome that.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the G7 major industrialized nations next week, will he explain to them how he managed to get an oil-rich country like Britain to the bottom of the employment, growth and investment leagues?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should look at what has happened over the past 10 years, when our growth has far outstripped that of almost every other industrial nation. Over the decade as a whole, we have one of the best job creation records of any nation.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister chooses to speak of the past. Will he therefore recognise that, for the past three years, we have been at the bottom of those employment, growth and investment leagues and that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with his policies we will be in that position

again next year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the first time that any country has been at the bottom for four consecutive years? As the right hon. Gentleman has been a Treasury Minister or the Prime Minister over the whole period, does he agree that he should accept unique responsibility for this unique failure?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should have read on in the OECD report, where it was made clear that lower inflation is the essential condition for sustained growth. Everybody recognises that except the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, only last week at the National Economic Development Council, trade unionists such as Mr. Jordan, Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Willis all supported the steps to reduce inflation. Only the right hon. Gentleman does not know where prosperity begins.

Mr. Kinnock: By pushing the economy into deep recession, the Prime Minister can, of course, reduce inflation. Does he think that, under his policies, he will be higher placed on the growth, employment and investment leagues next year? Does he recognise that, if he is not, he is just laying the seeds for further inflation?

The Prime Minister: We are absolutely refusing to take action now that may lay the seeds for future inflation. We are determined to ensure that we not only get inflation down but keep it down. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we shall not take the easy option now at the risk of problems later.

Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend read the reports of the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which, incidentally, sponsors the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This must be related to the Government's responsibilities.

Mr. Banks: Has he read about its calls for the scrapping of all trade union laws, with the consequent return of Mr. Ron Todd's secondary strikes and flying pickets? Is not he thankful that in framing industrial laws, his party conferences have not been tainted by the block votes of the trade union ballots?

The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear that Labour Members are sensitive about their relationship with the trade unions. They are right to be, because their idea of democracy is demonstrated every year when the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union visits the Labour party conference—one man, 1 million votes, and the right hon. Gentleman does as he is told.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: When the Prime Minister takes time off from his engagements, will he do what the Home Secretary so conspicuously failed to do yesterday and accept total and unconditional responsibility for the appalling lapse in security that allowed two alleged terrorists to escape from Brixton gaol? Does not he realise what an enormous propaganda coup the Government have given the IRA?

The Prime Minister: Everyone shares the concern at the lapse in security yesterday which resulted in two prisoners escaping. That is a matter of genuine regret, not least by


my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Those problems have occurred before under previous Governments, but only this Government have taken action to tighten security, improve the conditions of prison staff and provide new and proper prison places.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that a minimum wage would be damaging but that a minimum wage based on median wages would be the worst of all, because it would continue to ratchet upwards as the median moved upwards? That would lead to a catastrophic rise in wages, destruction of jobs and a policy that could have been dreamt up only by a shadow Cabinet controlled by 18 trade union-sponsored Members out of 20.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is now generally understood by everyone except those on the Opposition Front Bench that a minimum wage policy would devastate British industry and create a substantial amount of unemployment.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: As the Prime Minister says that he believes in the creation of a classless society, will he assure the House that he will not recommend the creation of any hereditary peerages?

The Prime Minister: The subject of honours is not a matter that I am required to answer in front of the House and I do not propose to do so.

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the admission by Iraq that it has been developing a nuclear weapon? Does he agree that any responsible political party in this country should give a firm pledge not to give up nuclear weapons as long as other countries still have them and countries such as Iraq are developing them?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Iraq has now admitted to having a secret uranium enrichment programme. That is a clear violation of the nuclear safeguards agreement and of Iraq's non-proliferation treaty obligations. As I said some time ago at the Scottish conference in Perth, we shall ensure by whatever means it takes that Iraq can never again build up a capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for a moment the question of how the Bank of Credit and Commerce International got into its present position, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he personally understands the scale of the tragedy that is befalling BCCI investors? Is he aware that in some communities in Britain, up to 30 per cent. of traders are account holders in BCCI? Will he look at the

rules governing compensation, which many regard as incapable of meeting the needs of those innocent people whose livelihoods are being destroyed?

The Prime Minister: I do, of course, understand the depth of tragedy that the apparent collapse of BCCI may mean. As yet, we are not sure what the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, the Bank of England investigation or other matters will be. The deposit protection fund was explicitly set up to protect small depositors, particularly those people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is most concerned, and it will apply in these circumstances.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the private Member's Bill that would give the National Audit Office power to cost Opposition policies? If the Bill becomes law, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the National Audit Office will be given sufficient staff to carry out that important task because it is a big job—commitments are added week by week and speech by speech by Labour spokesmen—or is it a task which would be beyond anybody?

The Prime Minister: I welcome my hon. Friend's tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but I fear that he suggests a little too much. Only last Friday, the Labour party explained that its regional assemblies would be funded by block grant from Westminster. As usual, no price tag was attached and we may yet have to determine what that price tag is. As many hon. Members may have seen on "Panorama" last night, a member of the Labour party, Professor Rowthorne, summed up the matter adequately. Asked about Labour's spending plans, he said:
Frankly I think they don't add up. If you take their whole list of spending plans and say where's the money for this going to come from I think the answer is—I have no idea.
We have a very good idea—from the taxpayer's pocket.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassure the people of Wales by condemning the ludicrous suggestion that the Royal Welch Fusiliers could ever be merged with the Cheshire regiment, or that the oldest and one of the finest regiments in Wales could ever be disbanded?

The Prime Minister: We have very great concern for the regimental structure, which is more than the Opposition have shown during the past few years. Final decisions on "Options for Change" will take account of all relevant factors. Those decisions have not yet been made. When they are, my right hon. Friend and I shall be here to answer for them.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: When my right hon. Friend met the leaders of the trade unions yesterday, did he feel that his position was significantly enhanced by the fact that those same trade unions do not wield 90 per cent. of the votes at


his party's conference and do not provide 70 per cent. of the funding for his party and that 18 of his Cabinet Ministers are not sponsored by trade unions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree that that gives me a degree of freedom not open to everyone else. There is no doubt that Conservative employment laws have brought about a record on industrial relations which is currently the envy of the whole of Europe. We had fewer strikes last year than at any time since the war. In contrast, Labour's strikers' charter gives the unions exactly what they want and no one can doubt their ambitions. As Ron Todd said—I shall read this slowly so that hon. Members can listen:
We do not want to go back to 1979—things weren't that good even then.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: As hostilities are being renewed, with accusations and counter-accusations by former Cabinet Ministers, is there any truth in the rumour floating round Westminster that a small EC peace-keeping mission is to come over here to try to restore some peace in the Prime Minister's party?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Peter Kilfoyle, Esq., for Liverpool, Walton.

BILL PRESENTED

RESTORATION OF THE FRANCHISE

Mr. Harry Barnes, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mr. Eddie Loyden, presented a Bill to remove impediments to electoral registration; and to limit the uses which may be made of electoral registers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the 10 questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

PATENT OFFICE

That the draft Patent Office Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

DENTAL AUXILIARIES

That the draft Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Amendment Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

STATISTICS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Statistics (Confidentiality) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

GMOs (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents and Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY

That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD.

That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.— [Mr. Wood.]

Points of Order

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is serious. I am concerned about the safety and well-being of two of our colleagues in the House. As the new hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was being presented here in the House of Commons for the first time, I noticed that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) were not in the Chamber. Should we send out a search party?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is very full, so I cannot see everyone.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request for a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about the fact that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International is on the current DOE list of recommendations for local authorities to put their money into? A number of local authorities are now deeply in debt because of the freezing of the accounts. Is the Secretary of State for the Environment prepared to come to the House and make a statement to outline arrangements for compensating local authorities that are in debt as a result of the Department's incompetence?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any further requests for a statement, but we had one yesterday and I cannot recollect that question being asked.

Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any notification that the Secretary of State for Transport intends to make a statement? I received a press release yesterday which confirms that a further 15 new or extended bypasses are to be built and that three scheme identification studies are to be carried out, at a total value of £85 million—a significant figure. I should have thought that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want the opportunity to congratulate the Department on that announcement and to establish any further details about the plans that they may seek on behalf of their constituents. Does this good news have a chance of being aired in a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement about that, but I was present for a long Adjournment debate on this very matter, and I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman raise the subject.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, when the Economic Secretary gave us a report on BCCI yesterday, he said that he might have to return to the subject. Will you therefore agree that we need a statement from the Department of the Environment which, on 28 June, told York city council, "You can borrow money from BCCI"? It is a question of who will be surcharged: the local authority, or, more properly, the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not a matter for me.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw attention to a letter from the Department of the Environment to Allerdale council advising it to borrow from this company? Following that advice by a Government Department, recieved by Allerdale on 28 June, Allerdale district council borrowed £1 million from the bank last week. The advice came in the form of a list of banks approved by the Bank of England. Surely we should have another statement to Parliament setting out the truth of the position and the fact that local authorities have been grossly misled.

Mr. Speaker: That may well be, but this is not a matter for me. What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those responsible for making these statements.

Mr. Tim Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you ask the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to explain what the problem is if a local authority borrowed money from the bank and has got the cash?

Mr. Speaker: That is patently not a matter for me; these are matters for debate across the Chamber—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last one.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said should be heard by those who are present. Would it not be courteous if, for a matter of this importance, either the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House were present? By what mechanism may we ask questions on this vital subject, which concerns local authorities and many families who see their futures going up in smoke? By what mechanism do the Government propose to make a response, given the inadequate answers of yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the whole problem about points of order of this kind—they are addressed to me. They should not be matters for the Leader of the House—

Mr. Dalyell: Where is the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in effect not raising points of order with me—he is raising them with the Leader of the House. I repeat that although they are not matters for me they were heard by the Leader of the House, who is present. Nothing else arises out of that.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman should not be skulking where we cannot see him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct the record? When I said "borrow", I meant "invest in".

Companies (Subsidiaries in Liquidation)

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make a holding company responsible for certain debts of its wholly-owned subsidiary in liquidation; and to make other provision for such circumstances.
The Bill is aimed at preventing holding companies from retaining factories, machinery, and assets while putting wholly owned subsidiaries with no assets into liquidation, and passing the costs of redundancy payments, holiday pay, national insurance, PAYE, income tax and VAT to the taxpayer.
The Bill will achieve that by transferring statutory debts to the holding company when a wholly owned subsidiary is put into liquidation. It will defeat the practice of creating subsidiaries to avoid statutory debts, and will deal with the problem of what are known as phoenix companies—which effectively rise from the ashes of a liquidated company.
The impact of that practice is best illustrated by a recent example from my own constituency, in Skelmersdale, involving a company named Coppernob Group Holdings plc, which recently made 510 north-west workers redundant.
Before I continue, I want to show the House the most recent fax that I received from that company's solicitors, in which they attempt to prevent me from—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That kind of visual aid should not be used. I ask the hon. Member to make his case orally.

Mr. Hind: This fax contains a threat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to have such a document shown on television. I repeat, the hon. Member should make his case orally.

Mr. Hind: I was trying to make the point that, in introducing my Bill, I have been subjected, in performing my duties as a Member of Parliament, with threats of being sued and of injunctions. That has been done in an attempt to prevent me from carrying out my duties as the Member of Parliament representing Skelmersdale. That was my purpose in showing the fax to the House. It arrived at half-past four yesterday afternoon.
The Coppernob group of companies consists of Coppernob Group Holdings plc, which has two shareholders. The major shareholder and chairman is an American, Mr. G. I. Fields—"Just call me Giffy" to his friends, but now known in Skelmersdale as "Mr. Sleaze"—and Mr. Ashok Shah. The holding company owns exclusively—with the exception of one share held by Mr. Fields—a number of subsidiary companies.
In 1989, a company named Response, which manufactured textiles, predominantly for Marks and Spencer, and owned four factories in north-west England, went into receivership. In March 1990, Coppernob Group Holdings purchased three of the factories—those at Wigan, Warrington and Skelmersdale—their machinery, and other assets from the receiver, and set up a shell company named Coppernob Manufacturing Ltd. That wholly owned subsidiary bought what Mr. Fields calls "the business"—the company's work force, order book, and good will, but no assets. The company could only run with an overdraft guaranteed by the holding company.
That division of assets from the work force was clearly set up to avoid damaging the holding company if the subsidiary failed and to evade statutory obligations to the work force. That is a perfectly legal but extremely sharp and dubious way of doing business.
After 10 months of trading, on 11 January 1991, Coppernob Manufacturing Ltd. failed, losing more than £750,000 to Coppernob and over £500,000 to the taxpayer.
The Wigan work force of 180 were made redundant, but, as Coppernob Manufacturing Ltd was a subsidiary having no assets, its work force were sent down the road to the Department of Employment to receive redundancy payments, which were less than their statutory entitlement. That cost the taxpayer £552,812 in lost PAYE, income tax, national insurance contributions, and value added tax.
We then saw the rising of the phoenix company. In a deal between the liquidator of Coppernob Manufacturing Ltd. and Mr. Fields, the business in the remaining two factories in Warrington and Skelmersdale, employing 330 workers, was transferred to an existing Coppernob shell company having a turnover of £25,000, known as Team Spirit Ltd.—and not to the holding company. That transfer was made at a cost of £20,000, plus stock.
Team Spirit Ltd. failed four months later, on 3 May, and 330 workers were made redundant. Again, Team Spirit made no contribution to their redundancy payments, as the company had no assets. Some £252,000 was lost by Coppernob Holdings Ltd., but £1·2 million by the taxpayer. This left the unacceptable situation that, after two liquidations of subsidiaries, the holding company still held £1·75 million-worth of assets, but 510 employees had no jobs, no redundancy payments and in some cases no unemployment benefit because there had been a failure to meet the full national insurance contributions. Even Barnardo's and the local hospice lost money from the payroll giving scheme.
The work force then suffered the indignity of a double-page spread in the Daily Mirror on "top fashion house" Coppernob Ltd., two weeks later, followed by a two-thirds-page competition sponsored by the company. The work force would like to have won a prize in that competition, but all they wanted was the contractual redundancy payments that the operation of this company had denied them.
The loss to the taxpayer from these two phoenix shell companies is approximately £1·75 million, which could have been spent on schools, hospitals, pensions and social services. Instead, it is propping up the shady operations of Mr. Fields and his associates. The uncaring, cavalier attitude of Mr. Fields and Mr. Shah, who are really asset-strippers with the commercial standards of the gutter, is to be deplored.
The Conservative party has often been accused of association with this sort of thing, but Mr. Fields is not a Conservative. He spent most of his time in the factory telling the work force that he was a member of the Labour party and a friend of the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition will join me in condemning this shady behaviour. Mr. Fields's concern for his fellow man ended every time that he reached for his wallet. I see no reason why the law should allow doubtful business men like Mr. Fields an opportunity to exploit a loophole in the law at the expense of the public and the work force. The Bill will sort out a part of the law in which there is lack of clarity—that on the transfers of undertakings.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Den Dover, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Roger King, Mr. John Bowis, Sir John Wheeler, Mr. Brando-Bravo, Mr. Barry Field, and Mr. William Powell.

COMPANIES (SUBSIDIARIES IN LIQUIDATION):

Mr. Kenneth Hind accordingly presented a Bill to make a holding company responsible for certain debts of its wholly-owned subsidiary in liquidation; and to make other provision for such circumstances:
And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 28 October and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) give a long catalogue of apparently disgraceful events. He said—you rightly brought him to order on it, Mr. Speaker—that he had received a threatening letter. What redress does he have if this turns out to be contempt?

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member alleges that there has been contempt, he should address a letter to me on the matter, and I shall look into it most carefully.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important point, and I apologise for interrupting the proceedings. Is it not the case that, once an hon. Member uses a communication that he has received and that may be the basis of a contempt complaint, he cannot then raise a complaint of contempt with you or with the Select Committee set up to consider that? My understanding—I could easily be wrong, having been wrong so many times before—is that one is not allowed to raise such a matter on the Floor of the House if a complaint is to be made, and if an hon. Member feels that privilege has been breached, he should take that point up immediately, without raising the substance of the complaint on the Floor of the House. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has now raised the substance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. If contempt is alleged, the hon. Gentleman involved should raise the matter with the Chair at the first opportunity. The Chair will then decide whether the contempt should go to the Committee of Privileges. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) did not take that action, and presumably he will not do so now that it has been raised on the Floor of the House.

Opposition Day

[I7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Low Incomes

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start to the debate, I ask hon. Members to make brief speeches.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That this House deplores the huge rise in income inequality; and calls on the Government to combat poverty and its effects on health, diet, educational achievement and individual opportunity.
We are debating the growth of poverty and low incomes in our society. There could be no clearer sign of how rattled the Government are on those matters than that the Secretary of State with chief responsibility for the issue has been removed from delivering the main reply and been confined to a mere 10-minute winding-up speech. That speaks volumes for the Government's defensive attitude on the matter. Given their record, they are absolutely right to be defensive.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): It is no more remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I should have chosen to conduct this debate together than it was for the hon. Gentleman yesterday, as the Opposition's social security spokesman, to make his main speech on the minimum wage, which is precisely what brings my right hon. and learned Friend to this debate. Any attempt to debate the problem of low incomes while ignoring the issue of the national minimum wage shows how rattled the hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I did not make a speech yesterday on the national minimum wage. I commented on the effects of the national minimum wage in terms of social security cost to the taxpayer. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman picked it up, because I shall return to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows a thing or two about low pay. He has spent his time in office doing his best to spread it in every way possible. Low pay is a very small part of the wider issue of low incomes, which is the real issue of the debate. The inescapable conclusion is that the Government are so ashamed of their record that they are doing everything possible to avoid talking about it.
The only aspect of a now almost totally discredited economic record, from which the Government still try to rescue some credit, is that living standards, they claim, have risen for all, including those on the lowest incomes. That is certainly not the impression of anyone who sees beggars for the first time in living memory on the London underground and on the streets of our major cities. It is not the impression of those who work in the voluntary organisations dealing with the homeless or of social workers or those who work in benefit offices and come into contact with the casualties of Government policy. It is certainly not the impression of those on the lowest incomes, but the Government continue to chant it.
The Government say that everybody has gained, that trickle-down is working and that poverty either does not exist or cannot be measured, and that, even if it could, it is not a serious problem. As I shall show, each of those claims is false. In support of their claim that everyone has become better off under them, the Government's favourite fact is that, between 1979 and 1987, the bottom tenth of the population had an income increase in real terms of 0·1 per cent. That is a figure taken from a Government document entitled "Households Below Average Incomes", and it is repeated in an answer which I received a week ago.
Never mind that that figure and others associated with it are four years old and that, if they included last year or this year, they would present a very different picture: let that pass. The Secretary of State is only too happy to accept that the figure to which I have referred shows an increase, and I would not wish to disabuse him of his self-satisfaction. For the rest of us, however, what do the figures mean?
The increase works out at a prince's ransom of an extra 3p per person per week. In other words, after eight years of Tory government, the poorest tenth of our population are, I suppose, an Oxo cube or a book of matches better off. I wonder how many Oxo cubes or books of matches Iain Vallance could buy after his recent pay increase of over £3,100 a week, or Tiny Rowland with his extra £4,100 a week.
I submit that the mark of a civilised society is that it looks after its weakest members and that there is something obscene about a Government who encourage such huge differentials. Unfortunately for the Government, the evidence in their document does not bear out the case that everyone has gained. Indeed, it reveals the opposite.
If the median or middle member of the poorest tenth made only a minuscule gain of 3p a week, that shows that the half of the group poorer than him—that is nearly 3 million people—overwhelmingly made losses. Their standard of living declined, in some instances by substantial amounts. That is borne out by the first report of the Select Committee on Social Security entitled "Low Income Statistics: Households Below Average Income Tables 1988" which was published a couple of months ago. It shows that a fifth of the unemployed were 7 per cent. worse off in real terms, a fifth of younger single adults and couples were 6 per cent. worse off and a fifth of those in rented households were also worse off.
That is confirmed by another piece of conclusive evidence in the Select Committee's report that the Government have tried to play down. On page LXXV of the report, it is stated that the average income, as opposed to the median income, of the poorest tenth of the Torydpopulation, fell under the Government between 1979 and 1988 by 6.2 per cent. I am perfectly well aware that the Select Committee, which is Tory-dominated, states that the
arithmetic mean could prove a misleading indicator…because a small number of extreme and unrepresentative values could bias the average figure for the whole group.
I have news for both the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Security, who I suspect will rely on that statement. Means and averages always work as the Select Committee describes, and they are invariably

accepted as accurate indicators of trends—except, apparently, when a Tory-dominated Select Committee finds that the facts are unpalatable.
If the evidence shows—it clearly does—major falls in living standards for the 2 million or more on the lowest incomes, why should that be written off as extreme or unrepresentative rather than the truth? To suggest otherwise is surely to fly in the fact of common sense, when everywhere around us we can see evidence of the new poverty.
We see people sleeping in cardboard boxes. There are people begging in the streets. There is a huge increase in bed-and-breakfast homelessness. There are lone parents with young children who are short of food. There is the growth of low-paid, low-skilled and insecure jobs. There are youngsters who never obtained a proper job. There are middle-aged or older men with obsolete skills whose factories or pits have been closed down.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to advise my hon. Friend of further figures that have been released recently. In the Yorkshire water authority, cut-offs have more than doubled during the past year since privatisation, because people on low incomes cannot afford to pay the massive charges imposed by that authority. At the same time, the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority has had a salary increase of 250 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is another clear indicator of the growth of poverty. We must consider not only the rise in water charges of the newly privatised utilities, but the growth in low pay and the inability to pay the charges. I repeat that that is obscene when compared with the increases sometimes doubling the pay of those who are now the chief executives and chairmen of the water companies.

Mr. Simon Burns: If I may take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier remarks about low pay, does he accept that family credit is a great help in topping up the earnings of those who receive it? Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House today his view of the future of family credit? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, in, I think, September 1989, said that he believed that family credit should wither on the vine?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a pretty ill-advised point. First, family credit goes to only about one-third of a million, and the number of low-paid in our society is certainly well over 10 times that level; secondly, it has only a 50 per cent. take-up; and thirdly, it just exacerbates the poverty trap. Therefore, it is not sensible to promulgate family credit.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that family credit amounts to a subsidy of the worst employers in the land and that we are handing out a state subsidy to employers who cannot pay a wage on which people can live? Is it not much better to have a national minimum wage so that such industries could be more efficient?

Mr. Meacher: As we well know, the Tories believe in low pay. That is why they refuse to prosecute those who underpay their workers. Family credit, about which they make so much, is little more than a bandage on the wound, and one that does not staunch it, either.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again. I want to make some progress.
What has been the Government's response to the evidence? One reaction was to declare that poverty did not exist any more. Regrettably, the survival of poverty turned out to be rather more firmly based than the survival of the previous Secretary of State for Health who espoused that view. The Government then promoted the idea that market forces would soon solve the problem, because wealth would soon trickle down from the top. In fact, it has been the unleashing of market forces in the Thatcherite decade which, so far from resolving the problem, has created it.
If I may return to the parliamentary answer that I was given a week ago, while the poorest tenth in the population had a rise—if we can elevate it to that title—using the Government's preferred formula of median income, of 0·1 per cent., the richest tenth had a rise of 40·3 per cent.—that is 400 times more. There is not much sign of trickle-down there.
Even leaving aside the poorest and the richest, the growth in inequality has still been enormous. According to the same parliamentary answer, the bottom third of the nation had an average rise in income between 1979 and 1987 of less than 2 per cent., while the top half of the nation had an average rise of 24 per cent.
The Government would like to argue—no doubt we shall hear it said today—that that is the result of merit or effort. If only it were. In fact, the pattern right across the spectrum has been consistent during the past decade that the weakest in society get least and the strongest get most. It is obvious to all but the most myopic observers that power and class are the determinants, not merit and effort.
Another parliamentary answer that I was given recently revealed that, in the 10 years from 1979, the lowest-paid tenth of manual workers received a 4 per cent. increase in real earnings, while the highest paid received a 17 per cent. increase. The lowest-paid section of non-manual employees also received 17 per cent., while the highest-paid received 46 per cent.
Far from there being a trickle down from the rich man's table, the nearer that the crumbs get to the floor, the thinner and fewer they become. According to the trickle-down theory, the more wealth there is at the top, the more reaches the bottom. Under the present Government, there seems to be a gummed-up filter; nothing is getting through.

Mr. Tim Smith: Surely the comparison that most people will want to make is between this Government's performance and that of the last Labour Government. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the past 12 years, the take-home pay of a married man with two children, on half average earnings, has risen by 30 per cent., whereas, under the last Labour Government, it did not rise at all? Will he also confirm that today's social security budget is larger in real terms than ever before?

Mr. Meacher: The reason why the social security budget is so much higher today than under the last Labour Government is that the level of unemployment is now more than twice as high as it was then.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No; I want to make a little progress.
What makes the enrichment of the already rich so deplorable is the fact that the Government have created that enrichment at the expense of those who are on or near the poverty line. The cascade of tax reliefs showered on the better-off during the past decade was made possible by the savings—they now amount to more than £30 billion—from cumulative cuts in benefit. Breaking the link between pensions and earnings has saved more than £25 billion; the child benefit freeze saved a further £1 billion; and, each year, further cuts in benefits for the unemployed have saved another £1 billion. Lest there be any doubt among Conservative Members, let me emphasise that those figures are taken directly from a parliamentary answer.
That must rank as the biggest redistribution of income from the deprived to the affluent that we have seen this century.

Mr. John Butterfill: Are not those figures—which compare the low-paid with other groups—essentially selective? I note that the hon. Gentleman did not cite any post-1987 figures; for example, he did not quote from the report of the Social Security Committee. Is that because he knows that the more recent figures would provide a much better comparison from the Government's point of view, and would not aid his case at all?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman really has put his foot in it. Our complaint is that the Government have deliberately concealed the most recent figures. Under the last Labour Government, we were given the figures relating to incomes—including the lowest incomes—within a year. Under the present Government, that became first two and then three years; now, the figures are four years out of date. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we had the most recent figures, they would show that those on low incomes are considerably worse off than before.
The reason why all that matters is that it exposes the Prime Minister's rhetoric at last week's Tory women's conference—his talk of a Britain with opportunities open wide to all—as the meaningless bombast it was. I see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is leaving the Chamber. He has obviously gone to look for some better figures, but I do not think that he will be able to find any.
Can the Secretary of State for Employment tell us what opportunities are open to the 2·5 million unemployed when the Government, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman in particular, have made drastic cuts in the training and enterprise council's training funds, even though we have the worst trained work force in Europe? What are the opportunities for the 150,000 families designated as homeless last year when the Government pressurise those on low incomes into home ownership that they cannot afford and then pull the plug on them with crippling mortgage rates? What opportunities are there for the 15 million people who live on local authority housing estates, the condition of which the Prime Minister recently described as "an absolute disgrace", when his Government's policies have produced that disgrace by cutting the housing budget by a crashing 85 per cent.?

Mr. John Bowis: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I must make progress if other hon. Members are to have the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Low incomes matter because several research reports have recently demonstrated that they severely undermine the quality of life. Last month, a survey was published by the National Children's Home which found that one child in 10 had gone without food in the previous month because there was not enough money to buy that food. It revealed that one in five parents had gone hungry because they did not have enough money to buy food and that one in three had gone short of food to ensure that other members of the family had enough.
I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security is listening carefully, because that detailed nutritional survey found that no parent or child was eating a healthy diet. Contrary to the offensive and ignorant remarks that the Minister made—she seems to be following in the "Edwina Currie" tradition of blaming the poor—they had such a diet not because they did not know what constituted a healthy diet, but simply because they could not afford one.

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again.
Poverty is the cause not just of an inadequate diet, but ill health. Even the Secretary of State for Health now admits that, but he immediately made it clear that he would do absolutely nothing about it. He said that the divisions were so fundamental and long lasting and the issues so complex that they were not a suitable subject for a Government target. After the ravages of a decade of Tory Government, surely there could not be clearer evidence that the Tories had given up on poverty altogether than that contained in the quote.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of what my hon. Friend said about the junior Minister, does he agree that it is extremely obnoxious for a would-be Tory Member of Parliament to try to trivialise poverty by living on income support for a week? The real issue is the hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of our fellow citizens who must live on income support for months and, in some cases, through no fault of their own, for years. Those people have no opportunity to go back to their two homes and substantial income after just a week.

Mr. Meacher: Lady Olga Maitland is well known as a Tory with a closed mind. She is proving nothing by living on income support for one week when, as my hon. Friend correctly says, people have to live on it for months and years without hope and in despair. I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches known the level of income support on which Lady Olga and others seek to live. I know that some Conservative Members have learnt the answer since I raised it before, but I wonder how many Tory Members realise that income support means living on £39 a week for a single person and £62 for a married couple. That is just about the amount that many Tories would spend on a modest meal in their clubs.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already asked hon. Members to bear in mind that this is a half-day debate and that a great many hon. Members want to participate. We must get on.

Mr. Meacher: I will not detain the House, but I want to draw attention to some other relevant information.
The recent research of Richard Wilkinson showed that, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the worse the overall standard of health and the lower society's life expectancy. That is not surprising, but it needs to be said. Other research by Mike Lake, Buckinghamshire's senior educational psychologist, showed a clear link between poverty and poor educational achievement.
That is why poverty matters, and why our indictment, using the EC's definition of the poverty line as 50 per cent. of average national income, is that the Government's policies have more than doubled the number of people who are forced to subsist on a standard of living that the EC regards as poverty. That is why poverty and low incomes are firmly back on the political agenda.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: One dog, one bite.
It is clear that the Government have no strategy, no intention and no desire to tackle the issue. In contrast, we will do so. We will raise pensions by £5 a week for a single pensioner and by £8 a week for a married couple, including for those on income support. We will restore the real value of child benefit to its 1987 level, after three years of Tory freeze. We will pay £9·55p a week, at today's values, for each child, including to recipients of income support. We will introduce a minimum wage to combat poverty, at a rate of—

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should get on. Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Meacher: We have made it clear that we will introduce—

Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman accused me of giving wrong information to the House. He should explain that he did not use the table in the Select Committee's report, which shows a figure of 9·5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman feels that he has been misunderstood, he should seek to raise that matter when he is called to speak later in the debate.

Mr. Meacher: We have made it clear that we will introduce a minimum wage to combat poverty pay, which is widespread, at a rate of about £3·40 an hour, which will benefit more than 4 million workers.
No wonder the Tories are so hostile to the idea, when, of 100,000 firms that have been caught underpaying their employees in the past decade, only 67 were prosecuted. That is why I say that the Tories believe in low pay. No wonder the Government are so hostile to the idea of fair wages, when the Secretary of State has assisted in cutting the numbers of the wages inspectorate to a mere 71. Each inspector is now supposed to inspect more than 5,500 workplaces, which is ridiculous.
No wonder the Tories are so partial to exploitative employers, when we see advertisements in the newspapers that say:


Job would suit a person on family credit.
Social security payments and lost tax from low pay cost British taxpayers more than £1 billion a year. A recent EC report said that poverty is
particularly high in the poorer countries of the EC—Portugal, Greece, Spain, Ireland and the UK.
What an indictment. The Government have certainly done their best to align our low pay to the lowest pay there, and I suppose that that is what the Tories mean by convergence.
But low pay is not only socially unjust. It is also socially and economically damaging. As another recently published EC report stated:
Europe cannot hope to occupy a leading position at world level if it bases its competitiveness on low wages.
That is exactly the Government's strategy. Their record on low pay—on poverty pay—is one of complacency and complicity. Only a change of Government will restore the combination of economic competence and social justice that Britain desperately needs.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies which have made possible real increases in expenditure on vital public services including social security, education and health; welcomes the recent recognition by the Social Security Select Committee that real incomes rose across the income scale between 1979 and 1988; and deplores the commitment of Her Majesty's Opposition to a National Minimum Wage which would destroy jobs, thereby reducing opportunities and living standards for up to two million people.
The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) explained clearly why every member of the Cabinet is envious of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security having the hon. Gentleman as his shadow. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman down the statistical byways along which he led the House; my right hon. Friend has exposed the fallacies in the hon. Gentleman's approach time and again and will do so yet again tonight.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He is a man who believes in being loyal to his friends. For years he has been sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and his policies have always faithfully reflected that close relationship. As the Labour party's employment spokesman, he went round trade union conferences promising everything they wanted. As a result, he committed one blunder after another, leaving his successor in the soup. He told the Transport and General Workers Union that he would fight with it to stop the abolition of the national dock labour scheme—a step now universally recognised as a boon for the ports industry—and he hinted that Labour would restore the scheme. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has kept very quiet about that. The hon. Member for Oldham, West told the trade unions in November 1988:
workers approve of the closed shop.
Less than a year later, his successor admitted that Labour would no longer openly oppose the abolition of the closed shop.
Worst of all, the hon. Gentleman bowed to the demands of the National Union of Public Employees and COHSE, and signed his party up to its commitment to a national statutory minimum wage. He was the employment spokesman in May 1989 when the commitment to a

national statutory minimum wage was written into "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change," Labour's key policy document. He was the man who stuck that albatross around the necks of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, and I doubt whether they will ever forgive him for it.

Mr. Brian Wilson: If this is old lags' corner, I am sure that I have seen the Secretary of State somewhere before. Indeed, I recall seeing a lot of him. I remember him as the Minister who was supportive in propagating every dot and comma of the poll tax legislation—[Interruption.]—and he did that more assiduously and with more devotion than any other Minister round him. Can a Minister who was so responsible in that respect and who thereby was intimately involved in wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on that folly, now tell the great British public that we cannot afford to pay people £140 a week?

Mr. Howard: It was obvious from the moment the hon. Gentleman got to his feet that he would go to any lengths to divert discussion from the national minimum wage issue—[Interruption.]—but he will not succeed in that enterprise. We shall keep to the subject during the debate.
I return to the exquisite relationship between the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Sedgefield. They are the Laurel and Hardy of the Labour party. Their conversations, which are increasingly frequent, always end with the refrain of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, "This is another fine mess you've got me into."
Last week the hon. Member for Oldham, West made an extraordinary speech in which he said that Labour would dismantle the links within the Employment Service between those who help people to find jobs and those who ensure that they receive the correct benefit. The implications of that are startling and far reaching. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to abolish the integrated offices which enable unemployed people to receive their benefit and search for work at the same place? Would he stop the new system, which I introduced, which ensures that unemployed people are seen by the same person whenever they come into one of the Employment Service's offices? Or does he intend merely to make it much easier for false claimants to rip off the taxpayer?
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been very clear in its advice. It said in its 1990 report, "Progress on Structural Reform", that future reforms should continue to include
social transfer programmes which continue to tighten links between income support and participation in education and employment programmes
and called for
promoting and reorienting specific income transfer programmes towards linking eligibility increasingly to job search, education and retraining".
The hon. Gentleman's suggested changes would defy international advice, undermine the progress towards better quality and value for money in our services towards the unemployed, and benefit only the benefit fraudsters.

Ms. Short: The Secretary of State may not be aware that the Government have progressively used the income support system to force people who are unemployed into lower and lower-paid jobs. That is what we are against.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. This Government have made available a wider range of services to help unemployed people than any other Government have ever done.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred several times to unemployment. That is understandable. However, for some unaccountable reason he failed to mention that unemployment is also rising in France, the newly united Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, the European Community as a whole, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Canada, Australia and even in Japan. The hon. Gentleman has a touching faith in the powers available to a British Government, but surely even he cannot believe that unemployment is rising in all those countries because of our actions.
Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, it is now feasible to see that the fear of a slump on the scale of the 1930s led interest rates to be cut too far after the stock market crash of 1987. What was the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer saying at the time? It is not difficult for him to remember. It is not as if he has a wide repertory of comments on such matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls for an immediate reduction in interest rates more often than the average parrot says "pieces of eight", and that was exactly what he was calling for in the autumn of 1987. It is clear beyond argument that, if the Opposition had been in office at that time inflation would have got higher, the measures needed to overcome it would have been more painful and the difficulties that we face today would be very much greater. That is a fact.
The hon. Gentleman also unaccountably failed to point out that every Labour Government since 1929 have doubled unemployment. That is a track record which Labour is still determined to match. It is still the case that Labour policies would sharply worsen unemployment, as I shall show in a moment.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Howard: Given the refusal of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), it is clear that I must give way.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to make the point that I had hoped to make to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the latest survey of pay trends by the Reward group, as reported last week in The Times? That group pointed out that a policy of a minimum national wage
would force up costs more in the Midlands and the North
and that that was
likely to create further job losses in areas with the highest unemployment rates.
Did not the hon. Member for Oldham, West refuse to give way to me because he did not want me to point out that fact?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not want to give way to him because the hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend is the true spokesman for the north of England on these matters. My hon. Friend speaks for his constituents in the north of England and knows what devastating effect Labour party policies would have on that area.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West wholly fails to acknowledge that the link between low pay and low

income is tenuous. According to the family expenditure survey for 1987—the latest year for which figures are available—only 8 per cent. of those in the bottom tenth of the earnings distribution are in the poorest tenth of the population. More than 50 per cent. are in the richer half and, indeed, 5 per cent. are in the richest tenth.
Unemployment is much more likely than a low-paid job to lead to low income. Only 15 per cent. of the poorest tenth of the population are in households headed by a full-time worker whereas more than twice as many are in households headed by someone who is unemployed. The conclusion is obvious: the way to help those on low incomes is to help them get and keep a job, not to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs by introducing a national statutory minimum wage. One does not help people on low pay by giving them no pay.
I accept that people on low pay, particularly those with family responsibilities, may need help, and we provide that help on a more generous and extensive scale than ever before. In just the past three years, the Government have tripled spending in cash terms on family credit. Since 1979, spending on benefits for families dependent on low-paid work has increased by 10 times in real terms. Today the average family credit payment is more than £30 a week.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is usually keen to promise increases in every benefit under the sun, but he has been more than usually coy about the one benefit that is specifically targeted to help families whose main breadwinner is in a low-paid job—family credit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to enlighten the House. Does he plan, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, to let family credit wither on the vine? Will the hon. Member for Oldham, West now answer a straight question? Would a Labour Government continue to pay family credit? I am prepared to give way to him so that he can answer.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fantasy point. Of course we will continue with family credit—we have never said that we will not—but it is far better to have a minimum wage to increase the take-home incomes of those in work. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accuses us in relation to benefits. Will he apologise to the House for the £30 billion cuts in benefit that the Government have made during the past 10 years?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Howard: I shall answer the question. At last, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has made clear his party's policies on family credit. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's figure of £30 billion. Perhaps he will enlighten me. I was not aware that he had obtained the sanction of the shadow Chief Secretary to use the figure of £30 billion in relation to benefits that the Labour party would restore. Unless and until the hon. Gentleman gets the sanction of the shadow Chief Secretary to talk about such figures, his best course is to show a discriminating silence on these matters, rather than to toss figures about.
The Labour party is fond of praying in aid the OECD. However, even the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the OECD's latest annual report on France expressly says:
in general it would be preferable for equity issues to be clearly separated from the functioning of the labour market and handled directly through the tax-transfer system".
That is precisely what we are doing. Indeed, we have taken the OECD's advice not only by introducing and increasing


family credit, but by sharply raising the income tax thresholds by 27 per cent. faster than inflation, taking 2 million low-paid people entirely out of direct tax.
We know from the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour party has no intention of reducing the tax burden and has no interest in taking people out of tax. Will the hon. Member for Oldham, West now confirm, therefore, that when the Leader of the Opposition stressed that the Labour party would put all the fruits of economic growth—if there are any—into public spending and none into tax cuts, he was committing the Labour party to a refusal to raise tax thresholds at any level faster than inflation? Will he admit that that means calling a halt to the process of taking millions of low-paid people out of income tax liability altogether?

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: I have already given way to the hon. Lady once and it was not an enlightening experience for the House, so I am not inclined to do so again.
The Labour party's vendetta against the low paid does not stop there. Labour is wholly committed to the social charter and the social action programme. In its latest policy document it promises to accept and implement the whole lot the moment it gets into office. That would include the draft directive on part-time and temporary work. The hon. Member for Sedgefield nods enthusiastically—he has supported that draft directive time and again. Under the provisions of that directive—it is important that everyone understands this—liability to pay national insurance contributions would be triggered not as now, when someone's earnings exceed £52 a week, but as soon as someone worked for more than eight hours a week.
The result of that Labour party commitment is that 1,750,000 of the lowest-paid people—all earning less than £52 a week but working more than eight hours a week—would instantly and automatically become liable to pay national insurance. How does the hon. Member for Sedgefield expect that proposal to help the low-paid? Has he thought about it? Does he care? Perhaps he has at last got his own back and dropped the hon. Member for Oldham, West in it for a change.
The Labour party claims that its national statutory minimum wage would "benefit" over 4 million low-paid people. It would do nothing of the sort. Rather, it would wreck our economy, smash job prospects and, as always with the Labour party, the lowest paid would be the first to suffer.
My Department has estimated that the second stage of the Labour party's minimum wage policy could destroy up to 2 million jobs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield does not like it when I mention that figure, as well he might not.

Miss Joan Lestor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those of us who represent constituencies where unemployment has been relentlessly rising in the past few months feel insulted by what he is saying? Will he now deal with the problem of unemployment rising in Eccles, where there is no minimum wage? Will he explain to the House why it is rising? What does he intend to do about the 3 million children who are now living on or below the poverty line?

Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Lady seriously think that a word that she has uttered justifies the introduction of a policy that could destroy up to 2 million jobs? Does she

expect the House to take that contention seriously? She should reflect on what she has said before blindly supporting a policy that would have such drastic consequences.
I have published the assumptions from which the figures of up to 2 million jobs has been calculated. I have invited the hon. Gentleman to publish his own figure of how many jobs would be destroyed by his policy, and the assumptions behind that. I have offered to have his estimates checked by my officials so that we can apply the same methodology to both. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to take advantage of that offer.
The hon. Gentleman claims that his policy would cost no jobs, but in a letter to The Independent he wrote:
I have not accepted that the minimum wage would cost jobs…I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact".

Mr. Tony Blair: Would the Secretary of State complete that quote to the end of the paragraph, please?

Mr. Howard: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to read to the end of the paragraph if he wishes. I have given the House the essence of the quote. If he wishes to read the whole of the paragraph, including the weasel words that I have just uttered, I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Blair: It just so happens that I have the rest of the paragraph with me. I go on to say:
Although nothing remotely bears out Mr. Howard's claims, I rest my case on the empirical evidence of the impact of what has happened elsewhere, the balance of which is overwhelmingly positive.
That is what the Secretary of State missed out.

Mr. Howard: How the hon. Gentleman thinks that what he has said detracts in any way from the weasel words that I quoted earlier, which he could not bear to utter when I invited him to quote the whole paragraph, is absolutely beyond belief.

Mr. Burns: If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is reluctant to take up the kind offer of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that Department of Employment statisticians could look into the matter, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend should suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should have a word with Mr. Bill Jordan, Mr. Eric Hammond and Mr. Bill Morris to find out exactly what figures they put on the number of job losses from the national minimum wage.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I shall have a word to say about that aspect of the matter in a moment or two.
I remind the hon. Member for Sedgefield of what independent experts say about the consequences of the policy. Only last week, two new independent reports were added to the chorus of condemnation which the minimum wage meets everywhere. UBS Philips and Drew reported that the first stage of Labour's minimum wage would add 400,000 to the unemployment figures and a full point to inflation. It said that the second stage would increase unemployment by 1·25 million and push up inflation by 2·4 percentage points.
The Reward group, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) referred, when speaking on behalf of his constituents in the north of England, stressed that the minimum wage would have a devastating effect on the regions, and singled out the west


midlands as a district that would be desperately hard hit. That comes on top of the many other estimates of job losses that the minimum wage would cause. They range from those of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which reckons that 166,000 jobs would be destroyed by stage one, to the university of Liverpool, which believes that 1·4 million jobs would be wiped out by stage two.
The Liverpool study also estimates that the second stage of the minimum wage would lower Britain's gross domestic product by 6·8 per cent. What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that? What flights of rhetoric would he reserve to denounce that size of a downturn in our economy? How on earth does he think that that would help the low-paid?

Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State referred to the west midlands and tried to justify his argument against a minimum wage by the loss of jobs. How can he pursue that argument when tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost in the west midlands and, unfortunately, are still being lost as a direct result of the Government's economic policies? The west midlands needs no lecture from the Secretary of State on the loss of jobs.

Mr. Howard: We can debate economic policies whenever the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, but the question that he cannot escape is how his views on the Government's economic policy—whatever those views may be—justify the introduction by the Labour party, if it ever came to office, of a policy that would add up to 2 million people to the ranks of the unemployed. That is the question that the hon. Gentleman must face. He cannot shut his eyes to it and escape it.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Oldham, West published his extraordinary calculations about the effects of the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage. He claimed that such a policy would save the taxpayer £1·3 billion a year. If he really believes those figures, why is he being so modest? If the minimum wage will be such a boon, why limit it to a half and then to two thirds of average earnings? Why not set it at 75 per cent., 100 per cent. or 150 per cent. of average earnings and let the money roll in? The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's figures are entirely bogus and he knows it. I hope that he will make clear the basis of his calculations.

Mr. Butterfill: While my right hon. and learned Friend is referring to bogus figures, may I take him back to the statement made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on real income increases during the past 10 years? Is it not curious that the figure that he chose came from table D.2 of the Select Committee report, which is the figure after allowing for housing costs, rather than from table A·2, which is the figure before housing costs—9·5 per cent.—which the Select Committee states in the preface to its report is a much better measure of living standards?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that important point, which I know will be taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who is the master of such issues, when he replies to the debate.
Will the hon. Member for Oldham, West confirm that his remarks yesterday referred, at best, to gross savings to

the taxpayer, not to net savings? Will he confirm that he has taken no account of lower profits which lead to lower corporation tax or of the £1·5 billion cost of applying the minimum wage to the public sector? Is he aware that even that estimate of the cost of the minimum wage to the public sector is simply the cost of applying it to full-time workers over the age of 20, and includes no figure for restoring the differentials of public sector workers?
Even on the assumptions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the minimum wage would not save a penny, but would cost the taxpayer at least £200 million a year to implement. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his figures assume that the introduction of the minimum wage would produce no increase in unemployment, which is contrary to the view of every independent expert who has considered the matter?
If, for the purposes of argument, we take the figure which the Labour party always uses as the cost to the taxpayer of every unemployed person, £8,000 a year, and apply it to UBS Philips and Drew's independent estimate that Labour's national statutory minimum wage would increase unemployment by 1·25 million, we find that, far from making a huge saving, Labour's policy could result in the taxpayer facing an extra bill of up to £10 billion a year. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has cleared that spending pledge with the shadow Chief Secretary? It is an unsustainable burden, the product of economic illiteracy and a testament to the fact that the Labour party is totally unfit to govern this country. It is for that reason that the head of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said of the minimum wage:
If the point is to avoid people being poor, this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it".
However, embracing extraordinarily stupid policies has become the stock in trade of the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
The last Minister in a Labour Government to have responsibility for low-pay policy, Mr. John Grant, reckons that, at a "modest estimate", the minimum wage would add £40 billion to the national wage bill. Of course, he is no longer a member of the Labour party, but there are plenty of people who are still socialists and have comprehensively denounced the minimum wage. Joe Haines of the Daily Mirror has written:
the minimum wage proposals won't work and if they do, won't help".
The socialist Fabian Society has published a pamphlet which, despite all the wriggling of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and its author in recent days, is quite unequivocal in its denunciation of stage two of Labour's policy. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who I am delighted to see in his seat, has also expressed his doubts. The hon. Member for Sedgefield always gets terribly excited when I quote the hon. Member for Birkenhead, but he cannot deny that the hon. Member wrote, in an article in The Times in 1984:
I calculate that the higher minimum wage target"—
that is, stage two of Labour's policy—
could result in a loss of more than 400,000 women's jobs, a 4·4 per cent. rise in the total wage bill, together with a 2 to 2·5 per cent. rise in prices".

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to be able, for the first time, to lean over the Dispatch Box and repudiate what the Secretary of State has said.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was misquoted.

Mr. Field: I was quoted accurately. As the quotation was accurate, does the Secretary of State agree with the first part of my argument: that we should move towards a lower target, with all the safeguards?

Mr. Howard: Of course I do not. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to persuade his party to remove even the second part of the target from its policy—it remains in all the policy documents. I have always acknowledged that the strictures of the hon. Member for Birkenhead applied to the second stage of the policy, yet that is still the second stage of the policy to which the Labour party remains wholly committed.[Interruption.] That is the fact of the matter, and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman must find it frustrating indeed.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes the biscuit. He assumes that the two-thirds calculation will apply immediately—not over time. Will he confirm that that is the assumption on which his estimate of 2 million is based, together with the assumption that everyone in the work force, including the Governor of the Bank of England, will get a 25 per cent. pay increase as a result of the minimum wage policy? Are not those assumptions absurd?
As the Secretary of State has just quoted from the Fabian Society pamphlet, let me tell him that, like everyone whom he quotes in his support, the author of that pamphlet had something to say about that. In common refrain of those whom the Secretary of State quotes, a couple of days ago the author said:
Michael Howard persists in misrepresenting my Fabian pamphlet. All three of his quotations from it are used to support the opposite of their plain meaning in the pamphlet.

Mr. Howard: Naturally, the hon. Gentleman has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to persuade his friends to wriggle off the hook on which they are firmly impaled. The passages that I have quoted from the Fabian Society document are accurate —

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished what I am saying about the Fabian Society.
The Fabian Society document quoted an estimate that up to 880,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the minimum wage policy pursued by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and his party. It is true that the Fabian Society says that it is in favour of a minimum wage, but it means a different kind of minimum wage. It does not favour the policy clearly and unequivocally set out in Labour party policy documents.

Mr. Field: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment, but I must first deal with the red herring introduced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. He has raised it several times before and he is entirely mistaken.
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said—he has said it now across the Dispatch Box and he says it in letters to The Independent and elsewhere—that my estimates of job losses are based on the immediate introduction of Labour's national statutory minimum wage at the rate of two thirds of the median wage. That is absolutely untrue. Whether the minimum wage is introduced immediately or not has nothing to do with the calculations. The hon.

Gentleman's objection would be relevant had I said that 2 million jobs would be lost immediately, but I have never said that. I have said that, whenever the policy were introduced, it would lead to the destruction of up to 2 million jobs.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield is seriously saying that it will be of some comfort to the people of this country to be told that 2 million people will not lose their jobs immediately but may have to wait six months, a year, 18 months or even two years before losing them, he is living in even more of a fantasy world than I had assumed.

Mr. Blair: Everyone who has heard the Secretary of State talk about the minimum wage has been under the impression that he is saying that 2 million will be lost. If that is based on an immediate adoption of the two-thirds calculation and everyone getting a 25 per cent. wage increase, that is what I would call wriggling of a high order.
Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will no doubt tell him in a moment. I have not put pressure on my hon. Friend to write the letter to the Financial Times; he wrote it of his own accord. In a letter to The Independent a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Labour Members of Parliament—in the plural—had condemned Labour's policy, but the only hon. Member whom he has ever cited is my hon Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who has denied it. If there are any others, will the Secretary of State let us know now?

Mr. Howard: The whole House will have seen the speed with which the hon. Member for Sedgefield abandoned the argument about the loss of 2 million jobs in relation to the timing of Labour's pledge. If the minimum wage were introduced at a rate of two thirds of the median wage, whether immediately or subsequently, it would cost up to 2 million jobs. The hon. Gentleman cannot criticise those calculations.

Mr. Field: The Secretary of State said earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) had leant on his friends so that they wriggled on the hook of their commitment or non-commitment to the minimum wage. I can answer only for myself. Will the Secretary of State now withdraw that accusation in so far as it applied to me? Will he accept that my hon. Friend did not communicate with me, nor did he ask anyone else to communicate with me? I wrote and then sent my hon. Friend a copy of the letter.

Mr. Howard: Naturally, if the hon. Member for Birkenhead says that, I unreservedly accept it. I did not refer specifically to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Let us get to the guts of the argument—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to get to the guts of the argument. They do not want to hear about the people who support my strictures on their disastrous policy. Let me remind the Labour party of what was said by Gavin Laird of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and Eric Hammond of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. The hon. Member for Sedgefield issued a press release last week in which he claimed:
the AEU is in favour of a minimum wage. Both Mr. Jordan and Mr. Laird are concerned to ensure that it is not used as a means of introducing wage restraint, a different matter altogether".


Mr. Laird was speaking specifically about the minimum wage when he said of any plans to introduce it in the private sector:
there's no logic for it, it doesn't work in any other country and it certainly will not work in Great Britain".
If those are the words of a man supporting a policy, it is hardly necessary for me or my hon. Friends to oppose it. Even the hon. Member for Sedgefield would not dream of claiming that the EEPTU is anything other than totally opposed to the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage. No policy so strikingly illustrates the economic illiteracy of the Labour party, its determination to put its public sector pay masters before the national interest and its total unfitness to govern.
I suppose that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen may have believed that the tide of condemnation of this policy was at last turning when earlier this week an article appeared in a national newspaper defending the minimum wage. At least, they may have thought that, until they saw the article was by Mr. Ron Todd and that it appeared in the Morning Star—

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that this is a short, half-day debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is abusing the system. He is going on and on. It is time you got him to sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Secretary of State has given way a good many times and I get the strong impression that he is approaching the end of his speech.

Mr. Howard: Of course the Labour party does not like hearing any of this or being reminded of the idiocy of its policy.
Mr. Ron Todd defended the policy, as I say, in the Morning Star. He is a doughty defender of lost causes, but I agreed with one point in his article. He said that the minimum wage was
exactly the opposite of everything the Tories have imposed on our country over the last 12 years".
He was right. It is the exact opposite of everything that has occurred since 1979—the exact opposite of policies that have created 1·3 million jobs since then and 3 million jobs since 1983. It is the exact opposite of polices that took Britain to the top of the European growth league tables in the 1980s and of the policies which have given the British people record living standards, record prosperity and a record number of opportunities. The Labour party stands for the exact opposite of the achievements of this country since 1979. That is why the Opposition have lost, lost and lost again in the past 12 years, and it is why they will lose yet again when the people of this country next have their say.

Mr. Frank Field: I want to make one observation about what I think has been happening to Britain under this Government and, if I can, to introduce a note of urgency on behalf of our low-paid constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has given us many important figures from the Select Committee report and I shall repeat none of them, but I want to use that information to describe how I and others see Britain today.
There have always been important income differences in Britain. Some say that they are class differences; others believe that that is not a meaningful term. An analogy is perhaps useful. Until 1979, Britain was like a railway journey. There were first-class, second-class, third-class and fourth-class compartments and differences depending on which compartment a person occupied. Despite that, all were part of a single train journey. Since 1979, however, the end carriage containing the poorest people has been de-linked. We want to introduce urgency to the debate so as to hold out some hope to people in the fourth compartment.
My second point is intended to introduce a sense of urgency on behalf of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and to explain why we should debate this issue. One of the greatest thrusts of Government policy has been to sell the idea of the market economy. There is not much difference between our parties on that now, and I am pleased about that. But if we have a market economy in which everything can be bought and sold and everything has a price, that price is important, particularly if the only thing that a person has to sell is his labour, and the price for it is miserably low. On behalf of those of our constituents who are single wage earners and who earn appallingly poor wages, I must point out that they look to this place for some redress. This is a doubly difficult task, the more so if these earners are responsible for families.
In our surgeries and as we move about our constituencies, we come across constituents who put to us very simply what it means to them to be low paid. They share the Government's idea that it is important to be in work. They strive to be in work, but they feel humiliated by the level of wages that they are paid. The Government have tried to turn this debate into a debate on Labour's policy, which is designed to hold out some hope to people who are continually humiliated by what the market pays them for what they can do best.
The Government and the Secretary of State have the cheek to talk about our ideas destroying jobs. I want to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what it means to have a job destroyed by privatisation. Imagine a man who thought it important to get up early in the morning before the buses and trains start running to travel through the wintry weather on his moped for miles to the local hospital, only to be told that his job and his mates' jobs have been privatised—that in future he can have a job but no longer a full-time job; that he will not be able to keep his family on the wages or even be able to claim family credit, given the hours that he will be able to work. So what he thought was sure has been torn up in his face.
What is more, that man has been paying for an occupational pension, responding to Government urgings not to rely on the state. But the firm that came in and tore up the full-time jobs and the dignity that went with them also destroyed the man's pension rights.
This debate has been about holding out hope to those who are in the fourth class carriage, which has been de-hooked from the rest of Britain and from the increases in income which—thank goodness—many have enjoyed under this Government as they have under others.
When we come to introduce a statutory minimum wage, we shall bear in mind what people say. I rejoice at the sight of the Secretary of State wriggling on his hook —about stages 1 and 2. He put across the message more clearly than we could have. He gave a clear statement to


those who expect hope from the Labour party as we approach a general election. The minimum wage will be introduced at a modest level and it will be linked to our other policies on training and investment. Ours will be a policy not only of dealing with individuals who earn low pay, important though they are to us, but of eradicating low-paid jobs.

Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nothing that he has said absolves him or anyone else from the need to make a careful examination of what the consequences of that policy would be? If a consequence of that analysis and of the analysis made by many independent experts is that a minimum wage would destroy so many jobs, does not it behove us all to take these points seriously and to put them across vigorously?

Mr. Field: Of course it does. That is why early in my time in Parliament I took a year to write a book calling for the distinction between stages 1 and 2 to which the Secretary of State has drawn attention. Indeed, he has had more success in drawing attention to it than I have had in my book and subsequent articles, and I am grateful to him for that.
Let no one try to detract from the urgency that binds us together in the Labour party in seeking ways to eradicate low pay, not to punish low-paid workers still further. We are mindful, of course, of the fact that tax policy, education, training and investment have important parts to play, too. In a way it is a tribute to the Government that, in their market-led economy, in which everything has its price, and in an age in which people can be pushed into work to bring home a wage packet, however small, we should press for a minimum wage in an attempt to bring some dignity to those people who are ashamed when they open their wage packets each week.
That is bad enough if one is a single person in Birkenhead earning low pay. I also bring to the attention of the House what is said by parents who bring home such a wage packet and who are still eligible for family credit. They say that the most humiliating part is the look in their children's eyes which says, "You've failed again." Our desire is to bring hope to those people, so that there will be a limit to the humiliation that the low-paid have to endure.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made so well. He made a case with which many of us have become familiar over the years. Although I agree with much that he said in respect of the feelings of those who have low incomes, we must acknowledge that some will remain low-paid whatever we do. In the early 1960s, I worked in the car industry, which was then one of the most prosperous in the country. A large proportion of unskilled workers in that industry received high wages by national standards, but still felt inferior and unable to cope in comparison with skilled workers who earned much more.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead is right to stress the urgency and importance of reviewing how the problems of the low-paid should be tackled by central Government. The present Government can take considerable credit for doing just that. One of the factors that makes it difficult for

people to move from a low to a high income is the extent of the skills they possess and their relevance to the areas in which they want to live and work.
The present Government, uniquely in our history, have pursued a training policy that benefits those of 16 years of age and older. Previously, a large amount of training was not Government-inspired, but was provided by industry to the extent that it felt was necessary—and even then, it was not particularly well supported by the Government, except in terms of general education.
Today, Labour shares more than it did the belief that training is a major element in the development of an individual's skills and of his income. We should congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Government on their approach to the breadth of training now available. I refer to such innovations as the training credit system and to the provision by training and enterprise council-type institutions of a broader curriculum, which embraces not only those who have already displayed considerable abilities but others who have been frustrated by the limited facilities available to them at school. Today, the means to achieve higher qualifications are open to a much wider group, and, under Government policies, there availability will increase still further in future.
I remember sitting on a number of Committees on which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was opposed in his arguments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), when he was Secretary of State for Employment. The hon. Member for Oldham, West usually acquitted himself well in those debates, but I had forgotten the extent to which that hon. Gentleman sticks to many old Labour party views.
Labour says that it will give extra money to one group, such as pensioners, and to another and another—but pays little regard to the source of that money and to whether it can ever be found. The hon. Gentleman made the same promise this afternoon. Labour is essentially saying, "We will give extra money to those on social security, and also introduce other measures such as a minimum wage." Where would that money come from?
My right hon. and learned Friend costed some of Labour's proposals at more than £30 billion. Even if Labour were ever in a position to try to implement its promises, it would be unable, within the constraints of a responsible economic policy, to do so at the speed that Labour suggests. If it did, it would create the inflation that we saw under the last Labour Government, with their high-spending approach to various sectors of society.
People in low-income groups have considerable problems, but how can they best be helped? The present Government have taken a realistic approach. After considering those most in need, the Government established a structure that makes it possible to distribute assistance in a better way. The Social Security Act 1988 provided considerably more help to many groups than they received before. Labour likes to knock the family credit system, arguing that it is impracticable and inappropriate, but it extends assistance to many low-income families.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1988 Act took away entitlement to any form of benefit to young people between the ages of 16 and 18? By cutting their training


programmes, the Government also denied those young people the opportunity to achieve better qualifications and thus make themselves more eligible to obtain employment.

Mr. Stevens: A training place is available to all 16 to 18-year-olds, and the 1986 Act enabled more to be done also for the disabled, who traditionally suffered from low incomes. The Government's general principles have shown a better way forward.
The Opposition attack what they call the quality of life today, but we have seen a tremendous increase in health service investment. The hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out that a low income can affect diet, education, and many other aspects of a person's well-being. The Government's investment in education and in the health service has provided so much more to the advantage of the low-paid. The Government have also provided better access to education and training, with the result that opportunities have spread through to the lower income groups.
One must also put poverty into perspective. We have had reference to the EC recommendation of half average wages. That may be a fair measure, but any suggestion that poverty today bears any resemblance to that which had such a dramatic effect on health and mortality rates in the past is misleading. It is true that difficult circumstances affect health. However, thank goodness, very few people here live below such a poverty level even if it is below the level suggested in the EC measure.
The minimum wage is a policy that the Labour party will live to regret. It is not a practical proposition. It has been criticised by trade unionists and many others outside. I think that it was the hon. Member for Oldham, West—I apologise if it was not—who accused us of being the party of low wages. That is not true. The Tory party has been trying to create a situation in which wages can increase and there can be growth in real wages and the economy.
The Labour party used to be the party of low differentials in industry, and that was a cross that industry could not bear beyond the 1960s. As the effects of that approach took hold, many companies became unable to compete in both the wider European market and further afield. If there was anything that discouraged people from training for better jobs, it was the lack of differentials between skills. A school leaver given the choice of a comparatively unskilled job at a wage nearly as good as that for a skilled job after training would be likely to reject training.
The Opposition still have a great bias towards cutting differentials—and I am not saying that to justify the high wage increases of which we have heard recently. That bias is not only a detriment to training, but discourages people who should be flexible in their skills, rather than going into employment at the earliest opportunity, and it is a great disservice to the industry and commerce of the future.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that some three quarters of those who are on low pay are women, many of whom are looking for work that enables them to maintain their family responsibilities as near to home as possible. At that stage in their lives, many of them do not want to undertake training. Why should they be paid hourly sums of less than

£3·40—in some cases much less? Why should they have to sell their labour at such a ridiculously low level that their families are living in poverty?

Mr. Stevens: I take the hon. Lady's point, but, since 1978–79, the real take-home pay of single people and married women on half average male earnings has increased by 38·6 per cent. There may still be cases such as those that the hon. Lady quotes, but there are many fewer of them.
The concern of all of us must be to support those on low incomes and to provide opportunities for those who, in some cases by no fault of their own, are in difficult situations. We have provided many facilities to enable development away from low incomes for many people.
I have another concern. Some people are still doing their A-levels when they are 19, perhaps because they started later, perhaps because they have to do a third year before starting further education, or perhaps because they are doing a different course. When they reach 19, child benefit for them ceases.
In such cases—for example, a one-parent family in which the mother is unable to work and so is on income support—there is no automatic right for child benefit to continue and there is no other benefit for that child in full-time education. This affects only a comparatively small number of families, but there is a case for continuing child benefit in such circumstances, until the end of the academic year in which the child is 19. It would be helpful to some families if that anomaly were sorted out.
In general, the Government are to be congratulated on the approach that they have taken to help all people to raise their incomes and standards of living.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: My original intention was to congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on tabling the motion. Perfectly properly and rightly, it expands on some of the debates that we have been having on income equality to embrace some other important issues such as combating poverty and improving
health, diet, educational achievement and individual opportunity.
It is sensible to have a broad-based discussion on this topic. Therefore, I was disappointed when the Government hijacked the debate by tabling their amendment, which enabled the Secretary of State for Employment to make the speech that he did.

Mr. Newton: Why should he not?

Mr. Kirkwood: Because, while I usually find social security debates fairly depressing, it is a long time since I have heard such cynical low-grade abuse being shovelled across the Dispatch Box from a Minister of such seniority. I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that we are trying to give people opportunities, but nobody who listens to the debate or reads it in Hansard will understand that the Government have anything like the appreciation of the problems that they need to make progress. I do not say this lightly, but the Secretary of State for Employment did himself no good by adopting that approach to this important debate.
My party does not agree with the Labour position on a national minimum wage, although I appreciate the problems from which the idea is philosophically generated.


I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, although I do not think that a national minimum wage will help. Our idea, to move more in the direction of a partial basic income, is a different approach to the problem.
I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the Secretary of State for Employment and I hope that, in future, he will be kept out of social security debates. At least when the Secretary of State for Social Security insults people, he does it with some flash and style. He is entertaining, if nothing else.
People get frightened by the detail of social security policy. There is an essential difference between the two sides of the House. The Conservative Government have always done everything they could to maximise individual opportunity. However, certain consequences flow from that. That policy was encapsulated by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she talked about there being no such thing as society. She thinks that there is no responsibility or duty on the Government to provide collectively, beyond maximising the opportunities for the individual.
That stance is perfectly reasonable and understandable, but neither I nor my colleagues or the official Opposition take that view. There is a case for collective provision, but one has to be careful about setting priorities for action. In the general election campaign, we shall argue that education and training should have priority for new resources. In addition, we shall have to try to find extra resources to address some of the social security problems.
I shall now consider the directions in which we should move. I welcome the increase in child benefit in October, but it should be paid now. It should be increased immediately to £9·25 for the first child and to £8·25 for other children. Initially, the benefit should be linked to prices, but over three or four years the difference in benefit between the first and second child should be phased out.
The Government should consider the possibility of ending the clawback for child benefit, especially after recent increases and the troubles that were caused by the reduction in child dependency allowances. Clawback should be removed, even if it means changing the rates for child premiums, so that the poorest families can be targeted. A net increase of £2 a week for the poorest families could be obtained by ending clawback and adjusting some child premiums. That would help to target resources, and it would not be too expensive.
Maternity grants should be increased to solve the problem of the additional cost of a first child. It should be about £200 a week for the first child and £75 to £100 for the second child. The changes to low-income benefits, apart from child benefits, could embrace immediately increasing the family premium for income support and family credit. The lower rate of income support for those under 25 should be abolished and we would redress the balance for 18-year-olds. There is a case for abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax, which is causing dire hardship.
A substantial reform of the social fund is required to introduce clear criteria of eligibility. That fund is failing in its role as a safety net of last resort for people on the lowest incomes. The Secretary of State for Social Security may wonder where the money for those proposals is to come from. Our policy document "Common Benefit" sets out a

comprehensive scheme which would, over time, integrate the tax and benefit system so as to release benefits and resources.

Mr. Newton: I do not intend to launch a verbal assault on the hon. Gentleman, because he is delivering a thoughtful speech—more thoughtful than one that we heard earlier—but I am puzzled by his suggestions on child benefit. He appears to say that he would not knock it off income support in the traditional way, which is to set supplementary benefit and now income support against child allowances paid for by income-related benefits. The hon. Gentleman suggests what can only be an income-related form of child benefit. I do not understand the logic of that.

Mr. Kirkwood: We are advised that it is possible to end clawback of child benefit from families claiming income support, while at the same time adjusting child premiums to target the benefit more specifically. That is what we were told, although whether people are in favour of it is a different question.
Pension increases are necessary and our document suggests financing those increases by the long-term abolition of SERPS. Obviously, existing contracts and benefits would be retained for people on SERPS. We suggest recycling resources to give immediate help. That would enable us immediately to increase the state pension from £52 to £57·50 per week for single people and from £83·25 to £90 per week for a married couple. We could also afford an extra £2·50 a week for people over the age of 75 and £5 per week for those who are over the age of 80. That would obviously take time to phase in, because the benefits from abolishing SERPS would not appear for some time. We think that we could increase pensions dramatically.
The Government should turn their attention to carers. Invalid care allowance could be converted to some sort of carers' benefit and indexed to earnings. The restriction that the invalid care allowance is not paid to those who are above pensionable age should be phased out. It is quite wrong that such carers do not have access to that benefit. Such a change would be expensive and would have to phased in.
Many imaginative changes could be made at no cost, and that is the basis on which we have tried to approach some of poverty's difficult problems. The scourge of unemployment must be tackled more robustly than the Government seem to be set on doing. We have produced a package of measures which could quickly combat a rise in unemployment. They include energy conservation programmes, funding for more places in higher quality training programmes, and measures to release some of the capital receipts held by local authorities to enable them to decide, if they wish, to invest in such matters as housing repairs and school repairs. That would also have the benefit of insulating houses and reducing fuel bills. A cycle of improvements would reduce the problem of poverty and deal with other difficulties.
As I have said, in the long term, the tax and benefit systems should be integrated. The first step on that road would be to abolish the contributory principle. That argument has been around for a long time, but it is important for it to be advanced as an alternative, viable option to what the Government and the Opposition propose. It would take some time to integrate national insurance contributions and income tax. Tax and benefits


could be integrated in a way that would ensure 100 per cent. take-up of benefits, and it would enable them to be targeted to the sections of our society that need them most.
A more towards partial basic income would benefit the system of delivery. A partial basic income or a citizen's income could effectively support needy families. We have calculated that, at 1991 prices, we could start with a partial basic income of £12 a week. That is in addition to child benefits and other basic benefits. Those who would gain most would be people such as non-working spouses and caring parents who, in addition to child benefit, would receive their own income as individuals. The main losers would be those on the top rate of tax, who effectively would have their national tax allowances restricted to the basic rate of tax.
These are other ways of approaching the problem. I accept that they are fairly radical and that they would take a long time to introduce in full, but we must make a start and embark on some of the routes that I have set out if we are to make any real progress. The ideas that I have canvassed have been costed, and I believe that they bear examination. I look forward to the debates that will ensue when the general election is called, because they will provide an opportunity to argue relative merits.
Whatever may be said about the mechanics of my party's scheme or those of the scheme proposed by the official Opposition, I think that the public recognise now that the balance of advantage in favour of the rich has gone too far. They understand now that public investment is necessary in our infrastructure and education and that the Government's policy of maximising opportunities for individuals and doing just about nothing else is a policy that has run its course and has run out of time.
I urge the Secretary of State to consider all the options and to examine ways of delivering help that is needed urgently by the constituents of every Member of this place who are on low incomes. If he does that, he will be able to produce better solutions than the Government have arrived at to date.

Mr. Simon Burns: I have attended many social security debates over the past four years, and my maiden speech was directed to social security. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to listen to the speeches of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and his speech this afternoon was no exception to the rule.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Rightly or wrongly, I gained the impression that he felt that everything was the fault of the Government and that poverty began on 3 May 1979. I believe that that is a genuinely unfair characterisation of what has happened over the past 12 years, or what has happened in our country's history over the past century or more. As I have said before, I believe that no one in this place wants poverty. Sadly, it is a fact of life, however, that there are less well-off people and less fortunate people than others in our community. I believe also that the aim of the Government, whether it be Conservative, Labour, Liberal or whatever, is to try to improve the position of those who are genuinely less well-off in our society.
I suspect that the divisions between the Government and the Opposition are based not so much on attaining the

end of a policy that is designed to improve the position of the less well-off, as on how to arrive at the right policy. There can be some fairly fundamental differences of opinion when it comes to determining the right policy, and at least I have the reasonableness and decency to accept that there are differences of opinion rather than to try to blame everything that goes wrong on the Opposition, whether that is related to social security policy, foreign policy, defence policy or whatever.
I have open-mindedness to examine and accept the point of view of others at a time when I do not believe that there is that much openness in the views of Opposition Members. I do not want to go through a host of statistics to compare 1974–79 with the current Conservative Government, but I shall refer to five figures to present the other side of the coin following the selective figures that were used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. If anyone casts his mind back to the 1970s, he will accept that it takes some nerve to gloss over that period in our history and to try to portray that Government in the light that is presented by Opposition Members. I have in mind the humiliation of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who had to leave an aeroplane before it flew out of Heathrow to take its passengers to an International Monetary Fund meeting. There then followed many genuine cuts in public spending.
I remind the hon. Member for Oldham, West that during 1974–79 pensioners' total incomes increased less than a fifth as fast as they have under this Conservative Government. I remind him that spending on benefits for the family during the same period was cut by nearly 8 per cent. and that the average annual increase in benefits for the disabled was only £325 million compared with £555 million since 1979. I remind him also that single people and married women on half average earnings suffered a 1 per cent. drop in incomes during 1974–79 compared with a 39 per cent. rise under this Government.
Married men on half average earnings enjoyed, if that is the right word—I somehow doubt it—a 2·4 per cent. rise in incomes under the Labour Government compared with a 34 per cent. increase since 1979. Finally, a married couple with one earner on half average earnings with two children had a 4·2 per cent. rise under the Labour Government compared with a 29 per cent. rise under this Government.

Ms. Short: We can all quote partial figures about the Labour Government. The entire House must accept, however, that since 1979 Britain has become more unequal than it has been for a long time. Inequality has increased and therefore there is more poverty. That is what the Government have produced.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

Ms. Short: Hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Burns: I apologise profusely. I of all people should not have made that mistake.
I do not accept the hon. Lady's proposition. Under this Government the economy has developed and wealth has been generated so that we are now spending a record amount on the social security budget. We are spending over £50 billion a year, over £1 billion a week.

Mr. Graham Allen: Unemployment is increasing.

Mr. Burns: Before the hon. Gentleman continues to harangue me from a sedentary position, he should accept that Conservative Members appreciate that part of that spending is the result of unemployment. That was true also when the Labour Government faced high and increasing levels of unemployment.
Over and above that, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has fought his corner in Cabinet and has secured an extremely good deal for the less well-off in our society. He has ensured that the disabled, pensioners, the ill and the unemployed have all received increases, in many instances well above the rate of inflation. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) does not just once in a while strengthen his case by paying a little tribute to some of the achievements of Conservative Ministers. It does no one any good to suggest that everything that the other party does is wrong. The hon. Gentleman would enhance his own street cred in Nottingham if he had a little more graciousness in accepting that.
Apparently there is a new policy that will be the answer to all the problems of poverty in Britain, and that is the national minimum wage. Do you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer to this question: what have Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union, Gavin Laird of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, Eric Hammond of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and Joe Haines of the Daily Mirror in common? The answer is that they are all opposed to a national minimum wage.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken about Bill Morris, who has shown enormous support for our efforts to introduce a national minimum wage and for a range of measures designed specifically to assist the low-paid.

Mr. Burns: I shall accept that correction if that is the fact. I understood that the TGWU had this week come out categorically against a national minimum wage. If it has not, I stand corrected. I still stand by my proposition that Gavin Laird, Eric Hammond and Joe Haines are all utterly opposed to a national minimum wage. They are opposed to it because of the impact that it will have on jobs.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), on a more coy note in The Independent to which he referred and which he desperately tried to disown earlier in an intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—I quote it again because it is just as relevant now as it was an hour and a half ago when he was wriggling so unsuccessfully—wrote:
I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact.
What does that mean? I suspect that it will mean some job losses, but the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say so to his colleagues and his trade union friends. I suspect that the public relations boys at Walworth road worked long into the night to obtain an acceptable draft to send to The Independent to save the hon. Gentleman's face.
The truth of the matter, which the hon. Gentleman fears so much, is that up to 2 million jobs could be lost with a national minimum wage, but I advise the House not just to take that figure from me. A number of respected independent analysts have predicted for stage 1 only job losses of between 64,000 and 1 million, depending on which independent survey one chooses to accept. For stage

2, the university of Liverpool has predicted that up to 1·4 million jobs could be lost. The Institute of Fiscal Studies —to whom pronouncements Opposition Members often pay lip service when it suits their arguments—condemned the proposal in the most scathing of terms:
If the point is to avoid people being poor, this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it.
Many hon. Members will agree with that sentiment. I understand that even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has been more forthright than the hon. Member for Sedgefield. In what must be one of the greatest understatements of the year, he has admitted that a minimum wage policy would mean that
One of two might lose their jobs.
That suggests that the Labour party has done some work trying to calculate the impact of a minimum wage policy on Britain's economy. It would be in everyone's interests if the Labour party were prepared to publish the work that has gone into producing the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predictions so that we, too, can analyse the figures and see what he has come up with. Given the controversy and the number of different organisations that are predicting significant job losses, why is it so reluctant to publish any research on that important point? If it has not done any research, not only is that negligent—surely one must inspect the impact of the policies that one hopes to put to the country at the next general election—but how on earth can the right hon. and learned Gentleman predict that "one or two might lose their jobs"?

Ms. Short: I have been near the centre of the development of the minimum wage policy and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no unpublished Labour party research. What we have done is look at all the academic literature in detail and thoroughly and we do not misrepresent it in the way that the Tory party does.

Mr. Burns: If that is so and some policy study group has examined the matter and, if I understood the hon. Lady correctly, all the different studies that have come out, and if the predicted range of job losses for stage 1 has been between 64,000 and 1 million, why did the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East say that "one or two" might lose their jobs? If he was being candid, he would have said that more than one or two might lose their jobs.
I cannot explain it, but I suppose that I am not expected to fathom the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind. It is odd that he is mentioning such a minimal figure if the Labour party has studied all the surveys that have been published. I trust that between now and the general election the Labour party will be a little more forthcoming about how it views all those studies and let the country know precisely what, in its opinion, the impact of a national minimum wage would be.
I should be grateful if, when he replies, the hon. Member for Sedgefield—he is not in his place, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will pass on the message to him—would answer three questions which should be answered. First, what is the Labour party's estimate of how many jobs a national minimum wage would destroy? Secondly, how can the Labour party justify advocating a policy which, by its own admission, would destroy jobs? Thirdly, if the Labour party cannot


persuade its trade union backers to accept a national minimum wage, how on earth does it expect anyone else to accept the policy?

Mr. Allen: The trade unions accept it.

Mr. Burns: In that case, I return to my original point. Gavin Laird does not accept it. Eric Hammond does not accept it.

Ms. Short: One or two individuals.

Mr. Burns: Opposition Members must not forget that the trade unions are the Labour party's paymasters. When the trade unions click their fingers, the Labour party usually jumps. I am not convinced that when the general election is called a national minimum wage in its current form will be official Labour party policy. There are up to 10 or 11 months in which the trade unions can get their claws into the parliamentary Labour party and ensure that it toes the line. It will be fascinating to watch that process.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that 155 Opposition Members are sponsored by unions? Is not the loss of 2 million jobs only the tip of the iceberg? Does not the Labour party's disastrous economic policy mean that the figure will be nearer 4 million?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his typically robust intervention. I was aware that more than 150 Opposition Members are sponsored by trade unions. I suspect that in the coming months there will be a great deal of tension, particularly among those hon. Members sponsored by the AEU or, if the EETPU sponsors Members of Parliament, perhaps among them, too. I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) smiling. I wonder whether he will still be smiling when the general election is called. If so, will his trade union still be smiling if it is so diametrically opposed to the official Labour party policy of a national minimum wage?
No doubt, over the coming months, the matter will be argued hard and fast throughout Britain. Now is not the time to continue highlighting the Labour party's embarrassment on the issue. I shall watch with fascination to see the trade unions and those who are so opposed to a national minimum wage make sure that the Labour party toes the line in time for polling day, whenever that may be.

Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a great honour to be called in a debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made such a superb contribution. I am one of a generation of social security students who served an apprenticeship under him without him knowing it. I owe him a great debt for all that he has taught me over many years in his work on poverty and social security.
It is sad that we continue to debate poverty in Britain in the 1990s. The Government have been in power since 1979. I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that poverty did not start in May 1979, but it became part of the vocabulary which was abolished from Government statements in 1979. That was the beginning of a period in which the abolition of poverty ceased to be one of the Government's objectives.
Since then, we have experienced three phases in the debate about poverty. The early 1980s saw a massive increase in the amount of poverty, which was caused by unemployment. The mid-1980s saw the punishing of the poor, through legislation such as the Social Security Act 1988. That Act abolished benefits for those aged under 18, and reduced them for those under 25. Now, we are seeing the results on the streets of London—destitution among young people, which should not be tolerated by a society that claims to be civilised. The results of the 1988 Act were compounded by those of the deregulation in employment, and the abandoning of local authority housing as an affordable form of accommodation for those on low incomes.
Finally, in the late 1980s, a further growth in unemployment led to a deepening of poverty. People who, only two or three years ago, believed that they were sharing in the benefits of an economic miracle have been forced into redundancy; they are losing their businesses and, at the same time, being hit by the punitive social security policies that the Government introduced in the mid-1980s.
Throughout that period, Ministers officially denied that poverty existed. In Wales—to which I shall address most of my remarks—there has been an additional denial: no one must mention poverty, lest it tarnish the country's image for potential overseas investors.
Low-income family statistics have been suspended, and then abandoned. Although we are debating a problem that affects probably 30 per cent. of people who are in or on the margins of poverty, we cannot see a regional breakdown for Wales; we cannot see official statistics telling us how many people are suffering poverty in a country with a population of 3 million.
Organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency have tried to pretend that poverty is part of the historical legacy of Wales. It is no longer a subject for debate, because to discuss it now would tarnish that image. I am sorry that no Welsh Conservative Members are present this evening, although I am aware that nowadays there are only six in the House.
The evidence of poverty in Wales can be found in a number of important reports, which deserve to be studied. There is the report by Jeanetta McAllister, of University college, north Wales, which examined rural poverty in Arfon, Gwynedd; there is, indeed, the Welsh economic review carried out by the Cardiff business school, and published by it under the title "Why are wages so low in Wales?" We have not seen much evidence from the Welsh Office, but, in 1986, the Welsh inter-censual survey showed that 43 per cent. of Welsh households were living on less than £80 a week—and that was at the height of Wales's so-called economic miracle. In the light of the increase in unemployment since 1986 and the sheer extent of poverty in Wales now, I urge the Welsh Office to conduct further studies.
The Low Pay Unit has also carried out some work, to which I must confess to having contributed. That contribution led me to want to enter the House, and I am very happy to have done so following the recent Monmouth by-election. According to the Low Pay Unit, one in four men in Wales earns less than the Council of Europe decency threshold, while 70,000 women work full-time for less than £130 a week, and one in five work for less than £120 a week. Do not those simple figures present an overwhelming case for a statutory minimum wage?
As I said in my maiden speech, there is no work ethic like that of the low-paid: people who work full-time for incomes that—after tax, national insurance and travelling expenses—are barely, if at all, above their social security entitlements. Six out of 10 women in Wales earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold; one in four in Clwyd and Dyfed work full-time for less than £120 a week. In my own county, Gwent, one in four men and 60 per cent. of women are earning less than the Council of Europe decency threshold. Those figures surely provide overwhelming evidence of the need for a statutory minimum wage.
Nevill Hall hospital has become quite well known in recent weeks. Anyone who talks to the porters and ancillary workers, who have just had their pay increased to £114 a week, will see the case for a minimum wage. All that we are suggesting is an initial minimum wage of £130 a week—£3·40 an hour. That is hardly over-generous; those who say that they cannot support it will condemn thousands to total poverty.
According to the Welsh inter-censual survey, my constituency contains the most affluent local authority district in Wales. Beautiful areas, however, often mask serious problems of poverty and social deprivation. Monmouth, both urban and rural, is a prime example of the way in which an area of outstanding natural beauty, which appears to support comfortable life styles, can conceal such problems. Poverty exists in Monmouth, just as it exists in other places.
We need only visit the jobcentres at Chepstow, Abergavenny and Monmouth to see how appallingly low are the wages for the jobs that they advertise. I wish that the Department of Employment could ensure that those who place the advertisements paid as much heed to the legal wage council rates as they are forced to pay to the sex discrimination and race relations laws. At every jobcentre, no end of jobs are advertised that pay illegally low wages.
In the five weeks in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have found the most disturbing aspect of representing the people of Monmouth to be meeting the growing number who are either homeless or threatened with homelessness. The problem is growing rapidly. On current figures, the number of people applying to be considered homeless by Monmouth borough council will be twice as large this year as last. That is an appalling indictment of the Government's housing policy: they have effectively abandoned local authority housing, in favour —or so they claim—of housing association provision. Even the housing associations would be the first to admit that they are incapable of replacing local authorities as providers of enough housing to prevent the present degree of homelessness.
Monmouth borough council is the only Conservative district authority left in Wales. Its housing strategy statement states that the market can never respond to housing needs. From that it is obvious that homelessness can never be dealt with under the council's present provisions. Despite the claims of the Conservative authority, it is clear that people have a right to rent from local authorities—they deserve that right. The problem of homelessness in Monmouth is becoming greater, and it is causing embarrassment to many Conservative members of the borough council.
What is the quality of life for those who bought their council houses in the heyday of the right-to-buy campaign and whose houses are now being repossessed as a result of

rising unemployment? What is the quality of life for those people who face little choice, but to go into tardy bed-and-breakfast accommodation because the local authority has no housing provision, as well as a five-year waiting list, which is not moving?
The evidence of the effects of poverty on people's quality of life is now becoming overwhelming. An important report was recently completed by Professor Johnathan Bradshaw, which was sponsored by UNICEF. He stated:
There is no evidence that improvements in the living standards of the better off have 'trickled down' to low income families with children.
A recent report by the National Children's Home showed that one in five parents have gone hungry in the past month because they did not have enough money to buy their family sufficient food of decent nutritional value.

Mr. Allen: That is one reason why the differential between the top 20 per cent. of earners and the bottom 20 per cent. is higher now than it has been for more than 100 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that looks very much like a return to Victorian values?

Mr. Edwards: We are not only witnessing a return to Victorian values, but a Government policy to return us to Victorian conditions. The figures behind my hon. Friend's statement were set out in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times.
The approach to the poor adopted by the three present Welsh Office Ministers demonstrates that there is a chasm between their thinking on the subject and that of others. The Secretary of State for Wales claimed in a recent speech that there was a need to start looking at poverty seriously. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), is a co-author of a No Turning Back Group policy document, "Choice and Responsibility". That document states:
As in third party car insurance, most citizens would be required to insure themselves for their old age, sickness, ill-health and unemployment.
If that is not opting out, what is?
The people need to know the status attached to that policy document. They must know the extent to which it will be incorporated into Conservative party policy should it form the next Government—I am sure that it will not. The people must know to what extent the policy of privatising unemployment benefit and old-age pensions has been accepted by Ministers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The title of the debate, "Low Income and the Quality of Life", should have led to a stimulating debate had the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) undertaken a proper analysis of the subject. Sadly, that was not the case. He did not address the second part of his motion, which relates to the effects of poverty
on health, diet, educational achievement and individual opportunity.
The problem for the Labour party is they opposed the sensible Conservative measures introduced in the past 11 years which have addressed the problems indentified in the motion. They have opposed many of the recent reforms in the health service, for example, which will increase access to health care and will reduce waiting lists.
Look at the way in which the Government are targeting deprivation payments to general practitioners in inner-city


areas. They are specifically designed to help people most in need. Improvements in educational standards in inner-city areas has meant that those who traditionally did not have access to education no longer face that problem. The Government, by extending choice through the use of city technology colleges, have introduced new horizons for those who previously did not have education opportunities. Surely that is what is meant by "individual opportunity"? We have provided the opportunity not only for those who can afford to seize it, but for others. That has been the result of the improvement in public services that has taken place under the Government and that policy will be a plank of the next election manifesto.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not recognise the massive increase in public expenditure in the social services sector, especially in respect of families. Those increases are an important part of any analysis of the quality of life of people. Expenditure on benefits for the family has increased by 29 per cent. above inflation under the Government. The October increases will mean that £500 million extra has gone to less well-off families since 1988. Family credit helps more than 340,000 families on low earnings and the average amount given is more than £30 a week.
Those important contributions could be provided only by a Government who are understanding enough to realise that, unless one gives people who are capable of creating wealth the incentive to do so, insufficient funds can be distributed to those most in need. That recognition is the signal achievement of the Government. The policy of taking some people out of tax altogether is one of many other significant achievements of the Government in the past 11 years.
Other issues, often controversial, must be analysed. The motion refers to diet, but the coronary prevention group of the Guild of Food Writers has clearly stated:
If you want to spend less money buying healthy food all year round, this is now not hard to do.
It is important to appreciate that it is possible to maintain a decent quality of life and a reasonable diet by means other than massive Government intervention or one's wealth. There are all sorts of possibilities open to people, but I accept that that requires better education and information. However, the opportunities are available to people if they want to take them.
Another matter of concern is the failure of the Labour party to analyse the effect of the minimum wage not just on the absolute number of jobs, but on whether it assists the reduction of poverty, which is another important criterion to analyse. It is interesting that the Financial Times of 25 June stated:
Minimum wages have rarely achieved their intended effect".
It called them
the poor cousin of poverty fighters.
That article referred specifically to the OECD report on France, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred earlier. It said that France's relatively high 9 per cent. unemployment rate and the rising proportion of long-term jobless, particularly among the more vulnerable, is attributable in part to that country's minimum wage proposals. The absolute number of people affected is

important, but so is the categories who are most disadvantaged. The Financial Times report referred to them as
the young, older workers and the unskilled.
It is extremely worrying if that is the effect of introducing a minimum wage. The hon. Member for Oldham, West displayed a smug cynicism in his attempt to claim that the minimum wage would assist people. That assertion must be put in context with the statistical evidence to the contrary provided by much independent research. I hope that Labour will be more honest when it analyses its policies.
The introduction to a report published by the OECD in spring 1991 says:
A minimum wage, if it is to be effective in reducing poverty, must be fixed above the market-clearing wage. But the corollary of this is that it is likely to cause employment losses. This latter effect may be particularly important in youth labour markets since young people tend to be over-represented amongst the lower paid.
If Labour's policy is to increase the risk of exposure to poverty and hardship, that should be of much concern to the categories that are most exposed to that policy. It is a particular form of cynicism that the Labour party should be trying to introduce a minimum wage.
The OECD's latest survey goes into more detail. I do not have time to deal with it, but I draw Labour Members' attention to it because if they read it they would understand why their Labour-influenced newspaper The People said:
Labour's plan for a national minimum wage is not the answer. It would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who most need them.
That is at the heart of the worries about Labour's minimum wage proposals, which are more likely to exacerbate hardship among people who are most in need, whom the Government have tried to assist. Labour's proposals would not necessarily address the problems of people who are already low-paid.
Many of the social problems of low income and poverty and of the difficulties of the most disadvantaged in our community will not be solved by Government action alone. The problem of increasing social tensions, which has arisen over decades and not only under this Government, is caused perhaps by the breakdown in community spirit. Part of that breakdown has been caused by the increase in the dependency culture and over-reliance on Government handouts. We must try to re-establish the importance of understanding how a community can help itself and how it can assist deprived members of the community. Many academics, including Charles Murray, have said that it is not only poverty that is important; it is the attitude of the people who are in that category.
Such people will be helped not by Government action alone but by other people who live in their community. The Government have done much to encourage charitable giving so that the people who are closest to the difficulty can assist those who are most in need. The combination of Government assistance through the social security system —our record is admirable—assistance to charities and encouragement of the community spirit, which enables people to help each other, is the right way to assist our people and the right way to approach this debate, rather than offering bogus theories of a minimum wage which would leave many people much worse off, particularly those who are least able to protect themselves.

Ms. Clare Short: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and with his criticisms of the Secretary of State's speech.
The Secretary of State's performance was a caricature of a cynical politician. It was what most people in the country think of politicians—long-winded and arrogant, and showing no concern for fellow citizens who work hard but run out of money at the end of the week. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a misleading account of the academic evidence on the likely job impact of a national minimum wage. He gave a deplorable performance, which showed that he has no concern for people.
We are reaching the end of a failed economic experiment that has done much damage to many people. Before it began, J. K. Galbraith said that Britain was about to make a great contribution to world civilisation by offering to test to destruction the theories of monetarism. We have done that, and many people have been hurt. It has failed economically and politically.
The Conservative party ditched the previous Prime Minister because the effects of Thatcherism had become horrendously unpopular. It got rid of her so that it could get a new image in time for the next election.
The Government's economic record is clear. Since the second world war, no Government have achieved a lower rate of economic growth—1·75 per cent. They ditched the last Prime Minister because her unpopularity meant that she could not win again, but the centrepiece of Thatcherism was that greater inequality would lead to greater economic efficiency—that, by cutting public spending, people would buy services and greed would make the economy more efficient. Our country has become much more unequal, but that was the centrepiece of Thatcherism.
The figures on the changes in the tax and benefit system are shocking,. Figures from John Hills show that, up to 1989, £6·5 billion was taken from the bottom 40 per cent. of the population and that most of it was given to the top 10 per cent. in tax handouts. The Government took money from people who had the least and gave it to very rich people.
That was a deliberate policy. Another strand of that policy was a series of measures to encourage low-paid employment. The Government removed protection that prevented competition by wage cutting, such as the fair wages resolution, and removed young people from the protection of the wages councils. They introduced the young worker scheme, which offered employers subsidies provided that they paid employees £40 a week or less. A whole raft of measures positively encouraged low pay. They were enormously successful. There has been much growth in low pay under the Government.
Low pay is bad for families and for the individuals who receive it. It is hard if someone works hard but ends up with so little that he or she cannot live and pay for the necessities of life.
Low pay is also bad for the economy and it always goes with low investment, poor training and high labour turnover. The Government have encouraged low pay and such employment conditions in large parts of our economy. It is bad for economic performance, which is partly why economic growth under the Government has been so appalling.
The Government boast about family credit, but if they encourage employers to pay less than a living wage, they must do something about it to bring people's money up to survival level. They boast about and encourage family credit, yet they are subsidising inefficient, hopeless employers who cannot pay a living wage. That is a ridiculous way to subsidise industry. It is a subsidy for inefficiency, for rotten employment conditions, for no training and for no investment. Our policy is not to gel rid of family credit—we will keep it as long as it is needed—but we shall raise the bottom level so that most people do not need it, which will lead to a saving in public expenditure.
The Government's misrepresentation of the academic evidence on the national minimum wage is unprecedented. Their claim that unemployment would increase by 2 million is disgraceful. It is false, it is lies and it is deceit. If we are to have a serious argument about low pay and a national minimum wage, let us get all the academic evidence. The briefing that the Government give their Back Benchers, who mouth the same, silly ill-informed nonsense, is unworthy of the House and brings it into disrepute.
The overwhelming bulk of low-paid workers in Britain are women. I think of that every time the Prime Minister sneers about the undesirability of a national minimum wage. But, of course, he is the Prime Minister without a woman in his Cabinet, who does not care about women's work being undervalued. Home helps and a whole range of people with important skills are low-paid. Much women's work is undervalued and underpaid. That is unjust and wrong. Women want a national minimum wage and will be the major beneficiaries, which is an important reason for the Tories to despise the proposition.
I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Public Employees. I am pround of it because that union represents many low-paid, overwhelmingly women, workers. I get no personal benefit of any sort as a result of being sponsored by NUPE. My local Labour party receives £650 a year to help with political campaigning and something towards the cost of my election expenses.

Mr. John Marshall: Ah!

Ms. Short: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members will listen carefully to what I am saying, because I mention the matter in all seriousness. It means that I am hooked organisationally into a union that represents low-paid workers. I meet those people regularly. I attend various events and I have close links with NUPE in the west midlands—all of which means that I never forget that there are many low-paid women workers. They passionately want a national minimum wage. I am proud to discuss the whole matter with them, and I seek in the House to represent the interests of many low-paid women workers.
Do Conservative Members consider that there is something wrong with that? It represents a democratic link with a large number of people in society. I am speaking of a large group of people who need a voice. I am proud to represent that voice here—[Interruption.]—and I cannot imagine why Conservative Members sneer at that.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Nobody is sneering.

Ms. Short: I heard Tory Members sneering at our trade union links. I have explained my trade union link. I am proud of it and it is good for democracy. There is certainly nothing cynical about it.

Mr. Burns: I said that, if a union such as the AEU was passionately against a national minimum wage, I suspected that it would do what it could to persuade Opposition Members who were sponsored by that union to understand the position and, one hopes, accept the union's point of view.

Ms. Short: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he is talking out of his ill-informed brief. The AEU supports the TUC, and its policy is in favour of a national minimum wage.

Mr. Barnes: What about Gavin Laird?

Ms. Short: Gavin Laird, speaking as an individual, has been critical of it. He is only one individual. But the union, which represents many thousands of people, takes a different view. Gavin Laird may not agree with his union's policy and he is entitled to express his view. Conservative Members are so ignorant about the way in which our unions work and how democracy operates that they think that the remarks of one individual mean that the whole union is opposed to the introduction of a national minimum wage.
The TUC supports the policy. The EETPU is outside the TUC and seems to be hostile to it, but that is not the view of the entire trade union movement. Some of the higher-paid, skilled unions did not like the idea at first, but after an intense debate in the movement—it has been going on for many years and has involved a great deal of academic research—many of them have been persuaded of the rightness of the policy.
Conservative Members should reflect that the whole of the rest of western Europe and the United States has a national minimum wage. If it has been such a disaster, how have those countries managed? I think I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State shaking his head in dissent. He is wrong. He should not just shake his head in that way and mislead the House, as he did earlier.
The Prime Minister tried to create a new image after the disaster of Thatcherism. Thatcher had to be ditched and the new Prime Minister said he wanted a classless society. That can never be achieved in a deeply unequal society. If we are to have fairness and justice, allowing people the capacity to move about and use their talents, society must be fairly equal.
The Conservatives have made Britain much more unequal and have destroyed many people's lives. Labour will bring in a much fairer system, with a national minimum wage, a fair tax system and a fair benefits system. The country will be a better, more attractive and more enjoyable place in which to live, and we shall have a more economically efficient society.

Mr. Patrick Ground: All the speeches and interventions of Opposition Members have been based on the idea that poverty must be defined in relation to average incomes or wages. I accept that there is considerable academic and international support for that concept, but we have not heard much about the relative quality of life at various stages.
It has been said—the European definition has been relied on—that half average wages is poverty. The hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), in her speech and intervention, relied heavily on the concept of relative poverty, but nothing has been said by Opposition Members about what has happened to the level of average earnings in the 11 years while we have been in office. Surely, if we are concerned with relative poverty and the fate of those whose position is defined in relation to average incomes, we should be very concerned indeed about the overall level of average earnings.
Average household incomes increased between 1979 and 1987 by about 32 per cent. in real terms—an important fact for those living on the lowest incomes. It seems unsatisfactory to define poverty solely by reference to average incomes because if that were the true position, Labour Members could eliminate poverty completely—if they were able to do so—by expropriating all incomes of, say, 50 per cent. of average incomes or above. That would make for a tremendous reduction in poverty, according to the definition of Opposition Members, but nobody would be any happier or better off. It might please those with egalitarian passions, but it would not add anything to the good of the country.
Because the whole debate if based so firmly on the concept of relative poverty, that concept is being related to assumptions which should not be used to monopolise the subject. I see the attraction of those definitions for Opposition Members, because they make matters awkward for a party which is not committed to equality of incomes, to very high taxation and to attempting to equalise incomes. However, it is possible to believe that it is important to seek to eradicate poverty without being committed to the doctrinaire equalitarian ideas of equalising incomes at all levels.
Most people living in some degree of relative poverty are less concerned with their relationship to average incomes than with their previous and present standard of living. They are more contented if they have improved their standard of living and are giving a better standard to their children than they enjoyed. Those matters are far more important to most of our constituents.
An examination of the way in which the material things of life have been enjoyed since 1979—whatever indices are taken from social trends and censuses and so on—makes it clear that even families on low incomes are enjoying more of the better things in life than was the case in 1979. Far fewer families live in overcrowded accommodation; there are far fewer families without bathrooms and with outside lavatories; there is much less overcrowding than in 1979; more people have refrigerators, cars and foreign holidays even among the lowest income groups; and there is better access to advanced medicine for all groups within society. Life expectancy has increased substantially since 1979. Although there has been some criticism about wage levels in the million extra jobs that have been created since 1979, those jobs have contributed enormously to household incomes.
I am sorry that more emphasis has not been placed in this debate on the relative quality of life for all citizens and for the poorest citizens by comparing what people enjoyed in 1979 with what they enjoy now. That consideration is at least as important as comparisons between low and average wages.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: There are three ways to improve spending power—charity, state handouts and better wages. I invite Conservative Members to say which they would prefer to improve their standard of living.
Will the Secretary of State for Employment explain why, during the weeks of Tory attacks on Labour's plans to make employers stump up and pay at least £3·40 an hour—which is not a fortune by anyone's standards—the Government have not uttered one word of concern about the plight of people on low pay? The Government have not recognised the facts, but we know their attitude because of what they have done to the wages councils. They failed to recognise that so many people on low wages were involved in those councils.
It has been mentioned today that the Secretary of State has just had his 50th birthday. I am amazed that someone who has spent half a century on this earth remains so ignorant of the circumstances of many of our fellow British citizens. I suggest that he takes a walk round Maryhill when I shall show him the standard of living of people on low wages in such an area. I am not interested in how he spends his birthday—I am interested in the birthdays of the kids of people who cannot afford to provide decent birthdays for their children and who get into debt trying to do so.
I shall say a few words about trade unions, although I have only a few minutes. My own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, supports the minimum wage. Although the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union is outside the Trades Union Congress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, its members gave the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer a standing ovation when he took the battle right into its camp and attacked Eric Hammond's refusal to accept the minimum wage proposal. Members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union have never made a wage claim based on the pay of assistants in dry cleaning shops or of waitresses in cafeterias. However, many male car workers have a wife, mother or daughter who earns low wages in jobs that have no trade union organisation and for which there are no wage councils, and they are not in the least averse to their wives, mothers, daughters, friends and neighbours receiving decent pay.
The TUC supports the minimum wage. Norman Willis has had letters supporting the minimum wage published in the national press, so let us have no nonsense or pretence that the trade union movement is against a minimum wage. A few leading individuals are against the proposal, but they are not the voice of the trade union movement as a whole. Let us stop the attempt to deceive the House and the British public about the stance of the trade union movement.

Mr. Tony Blair: If ever a ploy backfired, it was the attempt to hijack this debate. The Secretary of State for Employment is faced with the fastest-rising level of unemployment anywhere in the western world. According to the report published last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development job creation in this country will be lower this year than anywhere in the western world. Next year, this

will be the only country in Europe in which the number of jobs created will fall. We have the lowest growth and the lowest investment. We are the only country to suffer low growth four years in a row. Faced with that, what does the Secretary of State tell us today? Absolutely nothing.
The same OECD report states that skill shortages and inadequate training are responsible for high unemployment. Who but the Secretary of State is responsible for those skill shortages? Thousands of people are waiting for training places. We know from documents leaked from his Department that the relationship between the training and enterprise councils and the Government is not sustainable. We know that Britain has the worst skills deficit of any country in Europe, but what has the Secretary of State told us about that today? Nothing. When he had the chance to debate poverty seriously—an issue that matters to millions —what did he do? He elbowed the Secretary of State for Social Security out of the way and attacked Labour's minimum wage proposal.
There can be no more pertinent example of what the Government have become than the fact that faced with the fastest-rising unemployment and the worst skills shortage, the Department of Employment devotes its entire energy and resources to attacking the Labour party. The Conservative party has ceased to be a party of Government and has become a party of Opposition. The Prime Minister must be the first British political leader in history to have gone into opposition while still residing in Downing street.
What have the Government tried to tell us today? The Secretary of State tried to tell us that the Fabian Society condemned the minimum wage. I quote what the author of the pamphlet involved, Mr. Fred Baylis, said to The Independent. After complaining about persistent misrepresentation by the Secretary of State, he concluded:
Despite what Mr. Howard twists my words to suggest, I did not condemn Labour's proposal for a legal minimum wage. I strongly support it.
That is from the man whom the Secretary of State said condemned the minimum wage.
The Secretary of State also said that Labour Members of Parliament condemned the mininimum wage. We asked which Labour Members of Parliament, and he cited my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who then told him that he supported the proposal. We are still waiting for the answer to the question which Labour Members of Parliament are supposed to condemn the minimum wage.
I shall mention one or two items in the Secretary of State's document because I think that some Tory Back Benchers may be interested. It states:
Norman Willis of the TUC has said 'the level of two thirds male median earnings is an extreme level' (Financial Times, 3rd July 1991).
I have read the Financial Times of 3 July 1991, but those words do not appear. In fact, Mr. Willis said:
the claim by Mr. … Howard … that Labour's policy would destroy 2m jobs assumed that the wage would be set at some 'extreme level overnight"'.
The Secretary of State also cited in support the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. A few days ago The Guardian cited comments from Mr. Paul Gregg, the author of a pamphlet. What he said is highly significant and we should have an explanation. Mr. Gregg said:
I have had officials from the Department of Employment ringing me up quite often. Every time I say what I am saying [on the issue] it's not what comes out at the end.


It is about time that the Government stopped misrepresenting what people say and started telling the truth. On the Government's claim that it will cost 2 million jobs, the independent Income Data Services said the other day not only that the Government's assumptions were entirely unrealistic, but that the Government's claim were not borne out by the facts. When Income Data Services examined the 120 wage claims, it could find no discernible effects of the type claimed by the Government.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Income Data Services study was not based in any sense on the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept my estimate or the estimates of any of the independent experts who have said how many jobs that it would cost, when will he give us his estimate?

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's claims not borne out by the experience in other countries. Many of them, with lower unemployment rates than this country, have a minimum wage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman persists in telling us that a minimum wage will cause job losses.
Of course, the Income Data Services report was not an analysis of a minimum wage, because we do not have one; it was an analysis of where wage levels had been raised far higher proportionately for the lowest-paid than for the higher-paid, with no discernable employment impact and no impact on differentials.
It is not just a matter of the Government opposing Labour's proposals—they now want to abolish even the minimum wage protection, through wages councils, that we have. Not content with opposing minimum wage legislation for some of the lowest paid in our society, they now want to deprive even the people who have the benefit of that protection. Almost 90 years ago, Winston Churchill said in the House that it was necessary to set up the wages councils to prevent the good employer from being undercut by the bad. Those arguments are as valid today as when they were advanced.
The rest of Europe and the United States not only have a minimum wage but are uprating it by more than inflation. They realise what this Government do not—low wages are not the key to economic success. Training, skills and technology are the keys to success in a modern economy.
Let us consider some of the people whom the Government say should not be protected in the way that we believe they should be. The security guard on £1·50 an hour, the hairdresser's assistant on £1 an hour and other people sometimes working for a pittance are the people whom the Government do not want to support and whom they want to keep on low pay.
When the Government attack the minimum wage and our protection for the low paid, we hear little from them about Mr. John Baker, the chief executive of National Power, and his 60 per cent. pay rise or about Mr. Robert Evans of British Gas and Mr. Iain Valiance of British Telecom. Is there not something peculiarly disgusting about those who decry the notion of protection for the lowest paid, yet sit on their hands and do nothing while those in the privatised companies get huge pay rises? [Interruption.]
Conservative Members will listen. Have not the Government always opposed every piece of social legislation that has ever been put through the House? Do not they still oppose the European social charter? This is the only country to oppose it. Are not the arguments that we hear about the minimum wage the same arguments the Government used to oppose equal pay legislation in the 1970s? The Conservative party turned its back on the unemployed, and it now turns its back on the low-paid.
Of course the minimum wage must be implemented carefully and of course we cannot set it at too excessive a level, but we will start the process of having a minimum wage. We shall take care, but we shall introduce it, because it is fair and right and because a society that treats its most vulnerable badly is a society not worthy of the name. Labour will create that society, and that is one reason why we shall have a Labour Government.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I should have found all the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) more convincing if, among the many other quotations, it had contained a reference to the OECD report, which was published less than a fortnight ago, about the effects of a minimum wage in France. That report states that it is likely that France's minimum wage has reduced employment levels, especially for youths and the unskilled, and notes that unemployment is particularly prevalent among workers earning at or near the minimum wage.

Mr. Blair: I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been badly briefed by the Secretary of State for Employment. That OECD report refers to an earlier report by Mr. Bazen and Mr. Martin which found, first, that there was no adult employment effect and, secondly, that there was no discernible youth unemployment effect in France.

Mr. Newton: The OECD report does not appear to bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman places on it. What is more, the OECD specifically suggested that the right way to tackle the problems about which the whole House is concerned is exactly the way in which the Government have been tackling them—by reducing imposts on the low-paid, such as national insurance contributions, as we have done, and by introducing and improving family credit.
The notion that a minimum wage policy of the kind outlined by the hon. Member for Sedgefield will overtake and allow to wither on the vine the benefit known as family credit—a huge improvement on its predecessor, family income supplement—is far-fetched, given that family credit is now worth the equivalent of £2,000 a year to the average person who receives it. If we are told that a minimum wage will raise wages to that sort of amount, by heavens we have probably underestimated the unemployment that will be created.
I have only a few minutes left to speak. I do not particularly complain about that, except to say that I cannot be expected in the time available to respond to all the points made in the debate. At the end of April—the latest date for which figures are available—family credit, already taking well over twice as much money to at least half as many families again as under family income


supplement, went to about 340,000 families, the highest ever number. There are further signs that the numbers helped by that benefit will continue to increase.
Whether one bases one's views on the OECD report or on any other sensible analysis, there can be no doubt that family credit, together with the tax and national insurance policies which have pursued to create employment, is being and will be infinitely more effective in tackling those problems than the Labour party's policies would be.
I have not attempted to go into all the statistical minutiae offered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but we heard a lot about training and statistics in Europe. Let me give the hon. Gentleman four facts for him to ponder. If we adopted the approach to pensions which is general in Europe, 2 million women would have no pension. Nowhere but in Britain do married women with no contribution record qualify for a pension in their own right based on their husband's contributions. If we adopted the German approach in caring for the elderly, there would be no special income support regime providing up to £300 a week for more than 200,000 people in residential and nursing care. In Germany, that is held to be the responsibility of relatives.
If we adopted the French approach to child benefit—the hon. Member for Sedgefield is fond of referring to France—2,750,000 families, or 40 per cent. of all families, would get no such benefit. In France, the one-child family does not qualify.
May I tell the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) that, if we followed the French on income support for young people, single able-bodied under-25s would receive no benefit at all. So the next time that the hon. Member for Sedgefield wants to imply that the system works better elsewhere, he should say which system he has in mind and whether he proposes to copy it.
No matter how much statistical smoke is emitted, it is ridiculous for Labour Members to pretend to be bothered about poverty, and preach about a minimum wage that will mean fewer jobs and more unemployment.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 281.

Division No. 199]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Carr, Michael


Bellotti, David
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clelland, David


Benton, Joseph
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Robin (Livingston)





Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cox, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Crowther, Stan
Livsey, Richard


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Edwards, Huw
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meacher, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Hara, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hain, Peter
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooney, Terence


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rowlands, Ted


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Snape, Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beggs, Roy
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, Sir George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew





Irving, Sir Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maples, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tredinnick, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walters, Sir Dennis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Ward, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, Sir John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Whitney, Ray


Mudd, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steve
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Paice, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Timothy Kirkbope and


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. David Davis.


Porter, David (Waveney)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 217.

Division No. 200]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Allason, Rupert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amess, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Ashby, David
Franks, Cecil


Aspinwall, Jack
Freeman, Roger


Atkins, Robert
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David
Fry, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gale, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, Sir George


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hague, William


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Sir Charles


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David





Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Miller, Sir Hal
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Sir Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Rost, Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Carr, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bellotti, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benton, Joseph
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blair, Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy






Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyih)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Darling, Alistair
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dobson, Frank
Ingram, Adam


Doran, Frank
Janner, Greville


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Eastham, Ken
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Charles


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray}
Kirkwood, Archy


Fatchett, Derek
Lambie, David


Fearn, Ronald
Lamond, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Leadbitter, Ted


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Leighton, Ron


Flannery, Martin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry


Foster, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Foulkes, George
Livingstone, Ken


Fyfe, Maria
Livsey, Richard


Galbraith, Sam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Galloway, George
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
McAllion, John


George, Bruce
McCartney, Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKelvey, William


Gordon, Mildred
McLeish, Henry


Gould, Bryan
McMaster, Gordon


Graham, Thomas
McWilliam, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Madden, Max


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hardy, Peter
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Haynes, Frank
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Michael


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Michael, Alun





Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie. Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Short, Clare


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Hara, Edward
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L.
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N.


Radice, Giles
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wigley. Dafydd


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terence
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Sheerman, Barry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies which have made possible real increases in expenditure on vital public services including social security, education and health; welcomes the recent recognition by the Social Security Select Committee that real incomes rose across the income scale between 1979 and 1988; and deplores the commitment of Her Majesty's Opposition to a National Minimum Wage which would destroy jobs, thereby reducing opportunities and living standards for up to two million people.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Neil Thorne: London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of the operation.
Unfortunately, millions of pounds are being lost every year because of fare evasion. It is important that the people who use the system and pay for its services should not suffer the total cost, leaving many others to get away without paying.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but he said something interesting. He said that there had been fare evasion every year. Can he give us a run of figures, and tell us how much has been lost each year, going back as far as he wants to go?

Mr. Thorne: I shall come to the current figures later in my speech, and no doubt later in the debate hon. Members will allow me to respond to the questions that arise. I shall do my best to obtain the further information that the hon. Gentleman requests.
According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that no less than £12 million a year is currently being lost on the underground and a further £17 million on the buses. As a direct result of measures recently taken on the underground, fare evasion has been reduced. Nevertheless, the losses are still far too big to be satisfactory. Further measures are therefore needed. That is why the Bill is being introduced. It is similar to the measure passed in 1989, which gave penalty fare powers to British Rail, and whose implementation on the London to Tilbury and Southend line has succeeded in substantially reducing the number of people travelling without tickets.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman spoke of millions of pounds being lost through fare evasion. Where does he get those figures? Does he simply get them from London Regional Transport? How were they substantiated? There is not a shred of evidence. The Bill has been before the House several times, and those figures have not been substantiated, yet they keep being repeated. How does the hon. Gentleman know the figures if they are not collected?

Mr. Thorne: There are firms that carry out surveys which have been found to be accurate in the past. It is not possible to state a precise figure, but nevertheless, in general terms, the surveys have been very accurate. I am confident that the figures are correct and are as near accurate as can be arrived at.
Before the measure can be introduced, the Secretary of State must be satisfied on a number of points—adequate staffing, adequacy of ticket machines, arrangements for monitoring defective machines and for ensuring that ticket inspectors are properly trained. The scheme must also be adequately advertised before it is introduced, and there

must be disputes and appeals procedures. All these important matters will be carefully and diligently examined by the Secretary of State. It would be wrong to assume that he is uncritical about the standards that must be achieved before he gives his consent.
It is at last possible to produce extremely reliable and effective ticket machines, and they are available at all underground stations: they are available 99·9 per cent. of the time and they will give change. There are never less than two machines at any station and there are many more at busy stations. With this in mind, we can take advantage of modern technology and thereby reduce the volume of evasion and fraud in the system.
It is not possible for tickets to be collected on underground trains in the same way as they are checked on British Rail. The present maximum fare on London Regional Transport is £3·10 and a penalty of £10 in relation to that is appropriate. The penalty on the docklands light railway or the buses is £5. It has been specifically geared to take account of the lower charges on the light railway and on the buses.
Validation of tickets has been a major problem on the docklands light railway, so the system has been replaced so that tickets are now validated on issue—but it has become impossible to check tickets at peak periods because the railway is so busy.
Staff involvement is essential to the success of penalty fares and staff will be fully consulted before implementation. Although fraud has always been a factor, it has greatly increased in recent years. It would be quite wrong to allow those who want to indulge in fraud to get away with it any longer than can be avoided. At the same time, it is important to ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade fares can call in aid an excuse.
A passenger will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if there is no facility available for ticket sale at the station from which he started his journey. If he transfers to London Underground or to the docklands light railway from British Rail, and the British Rail station from which he departed has no facilities for the sale of tickets; and if a notice is displayed at the station from which he started his journey—whether a British Rail, an underground or a docklands light railway station—stating that it is permissible for passengers to travel from that station without a ticket, or if an authorised person in uniform informs the passenger to that effect, he will not be liable to pay the penalty.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman said that inspectors would not collect penalty fares on the docklands light railway because it is so busy and because it gets overcrowded at certain times, but so do many other lines. The Central line to my constituency is immensely overcrowded at rush hour, and so are many other lines. So why will inspectors be on very busy tube lines in the rush hour but not on the docklands light railway? is this discrimination?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman seems to have the wrong end of the stick. There are captains, not drivers, on the docklands light railway, and one of the responsibilities of such captains is to check tickets—but they do not do so through busy periods. Checking tickets in the rush hour is always a problem. Passengers are responsible for having


their tickets checked when they leave the station, and will therefore be responsible for paying penalty fares when appropriate.
If a person is asked for his ticket or authority by the London Underground or by a docklands light railway authorised official and states that he could not obtain one for one or more of these reasons, it is for the underground or the light railway to prove that that reason is not correct—the onus is on them. If a passenger wants to offer one of these reasons later, he has 21 days from the day of the completion of his journey in which to do so. Only then comes the transfer of the burden of proof. If a passenger does not provide an explanation in these terms on the spot or within 21 days, he has to prove that one of the defences applies. That seems an effective and sensible way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was the only Member to approach me about this Bill. He has expressed two anxieties. The first concerns bus services to his constituency, in particular bus routes 38 and 55, which were significantly altered on 24 February last year. The changes were made to improve the reliability of the services. Lea Bridge road suffers from bad traffic congestion, which led to severe disruption of services into the west end. Most passengers using services in Lea Bridge road did so only as far as Islington. Most people using the 38 and 55 bus routes into central London started their journeys in Islington. Only 8 per cent. of travellers used the service from Leyton through to central London.
By changing the structure of the bus network, LRT has been able greatly to improve reliability, which has brought benefits to far more passengers than those affected by having their links broken. Following the changes, Lea Bridge road is served by routes 48 and 56. Route 48 still runs into the city and 56 covers the old 38 route as far as Islington—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how what he is saying relates to the collection and imposition of penalty fares?

Mr. Thorne: I think that hon. Members have a right to know how their constituencies will be affected by changes in transport facilities, and how penalty fares relate to them. If you feel, Sir, that I am going into too much detail, I shall pass immediately on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I should like the hon. Gentleman to pass on to the subject of penalty fares.

Mr. Thorne: It is important to introduce this measure as soon as possible to ensure that the fare-paying public are not left making a substantial contribution to providing free transport facilities for those who are defrauding their fellow passengers. A reduction in the amount of fraud will lead directly to a fall in fares for everyone else. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Tony Banks: I listened with rapt attention to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). I hope that he will now answer the questions that he was unable to answer earlier. I asked him to provide a run of figures on fare evasion. We need to know

when the problem first arose and when it assumed the critical proportions which he now describes and which have brought about the introduction of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked an equally pertinent question. On what basis were the figures that appear in the statement on behalf of the promoters—showing that fare evasion is estimated at £12 million a year on the underground and at £17 million a year on the buses—arrived at? I understand that estimates are made of the amount of money not paid in tax—by a fairly hit-and-miss method—and I should like to know the methodology that London Regional Transport employs to arrive at those figures.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that they are produced by firms of reliable opinion pollsters. If I had decided to evade paying my fare—the House will understand that the thought would not cross my mind in normal circumstances—and I was asked by someone who clearly did not work for LRT whether I was a valid fare payer, I would be stupid to admit that I was not. It may be that the figures given by the Bill's sponsor understate the case, but if the House is to be persuaded of the need for such legislation, it ought to be provided with an accurate assessment of the level of fare evasion and information on how it was arrived at.
I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's claim that ticket machines are available 99·9 per cent. of the time. That sounded like a Stalinist electoral turnout figure. Most of us took such claims with a large pinch of salt and we must do the same in respect of the sponsor's statistics. He scarcely bears any resemblance to Stalin, either in terms of his appearance or his ways, but he attempts to employ Stalin's techniques. The hon. Gentleman may have been telling the absolute truth. If so, I wonder why I am so unlucky so often—because I frequently find myself among those who try to use ticket machines during the 0·1 per cent. of the time when they are not working properly.
Incidentally, I recently attempted to travel on the District line from Upton Park, and when I put money into the ticket machine, I received in my change what appeared to be a 50p coin, but which was in fact a 10p piece that one of my constructive and adept constituents had somehow converted. I understand that that happens a lot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say what attempts LRT is making to thwart those who doctor coins to use in ticket machines. I relate that fascinating anecdote to illustrate that even machines that work 99·9 per cent. of the time are not always used by people who are honest 99·9 per cent. of the time.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the problems of ticket inspection at peak times, particularly on the docklands light railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton asked about ticket inspection on the Central line, which passes through his constituency. We in Newham dream about travelling on the Central line in the style that one can from Leyton. One can well imagine how crowded the trains are by the time that they reach Stratford. When the Central line is working well, it works very well and provides a regular service. However, if trains are cancelled, those remaining in service become very crowded, and that is true on many other London Underground services.
It is futile to suggest that inspectors could operate at peak periods. It is difficult enough to breathe on a tube train during the rush hour. For inspectors to squeeze their way through crowded carriages may prove a very exciting experience for some, but it would be a slow operation—


and I doubt that an inspector could proceed very far along a carriage. In any event, the furore that such an attempt would create would allow many a fare evader to nip off the train before being asked to produce a ticket.
When we have accurate figures on fare evasion and details of the methodology used to calculate them, we can make a better assessment of the need for the Bill. We ought to ask ourselves if there is a high level of fare evasion, why that is so. London has the highest urban transport fares in the world. I would not mind so much if it also had the most efficient urban transportation system, when such high fares would be commensurate with the benefits. However, anyone who uses LRT's buses or tube trains knows that they are not part of the most efficient urban transportation system in the world.
Its shortcomings cannot be blamed on the inefficiency of the staff. I would not want to work on LRT. Every day of the year, irate passengers turn up at bus stops and underground stations to seek out uniformed staff on whom they can expiate their annoyance. It is quite a dangerous job working for LRT, and on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends—including my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—I pay tribute to all LRT's hard-working staff, who are badly served by the Government and their own senior management.
When one realises the lack of capital and revenue investment in LRT in recent years, it is clear why its service is so bad. The Minister for Public Transport, for whom I have a lot of time and who has visited my constituency on many occasions, may argue that the Government recently announced various schemes for large-scale capital investment. That is true, and I pay tribute to him for those improvements, but it took the Government a long time to make them. The Government belatedly realised what an appalling mess they had on their hands, particularly in respect of the level of fare evasion. If they are now punching some money into LRT, it is only because they realise what a big issue the capital's public transport system will be in the coming general election. Nevertheless, past years of neglect have contributed to the service's inefficiency.
That inefficiency is another reason why some people are not inclined to pay their fares. Although I could not possibly condone law-breaking, one can understand people growing so annoyed at the awful service that LRT provides that they become determined not to pay their fares. They almost seem to anticipate the Prime Minister's charter of rights, which will apparently allow us to sue everyone who fails to deliver a proper service. I hope that we will also be able to sue the Government for having delivered a crappy service to the country as a whole, but I will let that pass.
It appears that people are taking the law into their own hands and saying, "If London Regional Transport treats me so badly on a regular basis, why the hell should I pay my fare? If I can get out of this system without putting a penny piece into it, that is exactly what I shall do." When, in the past, Londoners had to pay a levy anyway, they could also say, "I am already making a contribution, so why should I also have to pay inflated fares?" The reasons for fare evasion can sometimes be fairly sophisticated. It is not always a case of someone wanting literally a free ride.
We must give consideration to changing to a flat-fare system, such as operates in most of Europe, whereby travellers could purchase books of tickets at newsagents or

kiosks, as they can in Paris. That is the kind of system that the Greater London council tried to pioneer all those years ago. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember the GLC. It is soon to re-emerge as the Greater London authority—though I hasten to add that it will be not the son of GLC, but a completely new, slimline body, as members of my Front Bench constantly remind everyone. When the GLC ran London's transport system, it thought that a flat-fare system was needed.
Some argue that the best way of defeating fare evasion is to provide a free transport system. That makes a great deal of sense, because the more people one can get to use a public transport system, who therefore do not use their private vehicles on the roads, the better the industry and commerce of a city can operate.
I am convinced that, if one were to go into the social cost of accounting for a genuinely free fare system in London, one would find that it would benefit everyone enormously in economic and social terms. Although I do not expect the Government to go for such a system, I hope that one day when we have a progressive Government, with a Department of Transport led by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, we shall think in terms of having a free fare system.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Banks: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Snape: I do not need promotion to the Privy Council. If one of the terms of my employment as Secretary of State for Transport were that I should introduce free travel in London, I would regretfully have to decline the post.

Mr. Banks: If travel were free, it would not make any difference whether my hon. Friend declined or accepted. There would be no deprivation.
I thought that my hon. Friend was going to make the valid point that a free fare system would mean the loss of jobs, as the unions have always said it would. However, that should not be so under a good progressive transport policy led by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, for the simple reason that service would be stressed. That is how other modes of transportation are sold. Airlines are sold by virtue of the fact not that everything is done on a shoestring and a prayer, but that there is good service and there are people to look after the passenger when he gets on the plane. Why should there not be people to look after passengers as they get on to a bus or an underground train, whether or not they have paid the fare? I am assuming that we have a wholly free fare system.
Let us move away from that policy, which is for a future Labour Government to implement. Let us concentrate on fare evasion, although we do not accurately know at what level it occurs. Another reason for it is that there are not enough uniformed staff at stations or on buses to ensure that people pay when they travel. The movement towards one-person-operated trains and buses has exacerbated fare evasion.
There is a recession and many people are unemployed. I have already said, and there is no gainsaying it, that we have the most expensive transportation system in the world. It is not surprising that people fall foul of temptation and save themselves 40p or 50p, not because


they are natural crooks but because that money can be spent on something else that is just as essential as travelling. I am not condoning that, but I would at least understand the rationale behind it. That problem would not arise if we had low or free fares.
Equally, temptation would not arise if there were more staff around because people would feel that, even if they could not afford the monstrously high fares imposed on LRT by the Government's economic policies and imposed on the traveller by the unfeeling management at 55 Broadway, they would have to pay, because if they did not, their collar would be felt.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: I see that my collar is about to be felt, so I shall give way.

Mr. Freeman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's cogent argument. I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could explain why, if his main concern is the level of fares, he opposes a measure that will allow LRT to recover more revenue and therefore to reduce the average level of fares.

Mr. Banks: That is a good point. If we knew accurately —we are taking it on say-so at the moment—what the level of fare evasion was, the Minister's argument would be enhanced. If the Minister is saying that the recovery of the full amount lost—the £12 million on the underground and the £17 million on the buses—will be directly applied to the reduction of fares, I can see a point for supporting the Bill. I shall be honest with the Minister, as I hope that he is always honest with me, and say that I am not opposed to the Bill. I object to what has been happening with public transport. If we had done this differently, we might not have those problems. We need to examine the reasons for the level of fare evasion, before we deal with it.
I am trying to pose a few possible ways to make sure that these problems will not arise in future. I have suggested a low flat fare or a free fare system. I am not opposed to the Bill, but the Minister and the hon. Member for Ilford, South owe the House an explanation why LRT feels that it is necessary to introduce the Bill. We are told that it is because of fare evasion, but why is that so prevalent? We need to explore the reasons.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, but will he turn his mind to the Government's attitude to those they call criminals? Do not the Government have a strange attitude in that they regard people who do not pay their fares as wicked criminals, however much money they have in their pocket or have to live on for a week, yet Gerald Ronson, a crook who was in prison, yesterday shook hands with the Queen Mother at the Royal Opera house? He seems to be acceptable in society and to the establishment, but he is a criminal.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend points out the hypocrisy that surrounds this issue. Yesterday, I asked the Attorney-General a question about the level of white collar crime and I said that I did not think that the Government took it seriously. I was aghast at the picture of the criminal Gerald Ronson shaking hands with the Queen Mother. Did she know that her hand was being

shaken by this dasterdly, evil, wicked, wretched man who had robbed decent, honest people of £5 million? I do not know, but I felt for her. It was scandalous.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend may be able to help us by telling us whether Mr. Gerald Ronson had committed another dasterdly crime. Did he pay his fare on the underground on his way to the opera?

Mr. Banks: To judge from Mr. Gerald Ronson's track record, I doubt whether he did, but then I doubt whether he used the underground. He is not the sort of person one bumps into on the Central line with a, "Hello, Gerald, I see that they let you out already." Many of my constituents can be met in such circumstances, but not Mr. Gerald Ronson.
I do not often say this, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has got this slightly wrong. Many of those who go in for fare evasion are not the sort of people I was describing—people at the sharp end of the recession, caught out by the Government's inept and malign economic and social policies. Often, they are fairly affluent. Some people who turn up in court for evading fares are lawyers. That should not surprise any of us, because lawyers are quick to charge and slow to pay. Some well-heeled people practise fare evasion, and most of them probably vote Tory. The offence is not limited to people who cannot afford to pay; those who can clearly refuse to do so. I am all for such people being dealt with in an exemplary way.
The diminution in staffing is one of the most obvious reasons for fare evasion. I regularly travel on the London underground and Network SouthEast and I have a fairly convoluted journey from the House to Forest Gate. When the Jubilee line is extended I shall have a much easier journey because I shall be able to go from Westminster to Stratford and from there to Forest Gate. Often when I arrive at Forest Gate there are no station staff, although it depends on the time at which one travels. All the staff at Forest Gate station are good acquaintances of mine.
There are problems when changing from London Regional Transport to Network SouthEast at stations such as Stratford because of the requirement for people to put their tickets into the machines—the automatic rottweilers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton described them. There are no such machines at Forest Gate and no staff either. In many ways you are encouraging people to evade fares. I do not mean you personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you turned up as an inspector on the Central line, I would willingly show you my ticket, with some surprise.
If there is no mechanism for checking tickets on the London underground when people move from the underground to British Rail, it is almost encouraging them not to bother with a ticket because no one will ask for it. When they arrive at Forest Gate, there will be no one there anyway. The hon. Member for Ilford, South should tell us whether LRT plans to put more uniformed staff at stations, especially after about 6 o'clock in the evening, because after that time, one is surprised to see British Rail or LRT inspectors at outlying stations.
I am suggesting methods that LRT could use to minimise fare evasion. LRT is guilty of complicity in its own downfall because its policies, which have been encouraged or demanded by the Government, have led to an easy ride for fare evaders, who aggravate the frustration


of regular travellers. They are frustrated not just because the service does not operate properly, but because they see people evading fares, which makes them feel like mugs. They say, "Why should I pay my fare for this rotten, lousy service when other people are not paying?"
The Bill is worthy of more critical examination. We should not simply accept it from the hon. Member for Ilford, South on behalf of the promoters that this is the way to solve the problem. As good legislators, we must always ask how the situation arose in the first place, who is responsible for it and how will it be dealt with. Rather than dealing with symptoms, we must deal with causes. When we do that, we address the genuine problem rather than its manifestation, which in this instance is fare evasion.
Earlier, I spoke about service levels. I hate one-person-operated buses, which constitute one of the biggest reasons for fare evasion. I have seen people getting on and off at the exit door. What can the bus driver do about that? Does he stop the bus and walk back to the exit door? Of course not. He or she just drives on because one-person-operated buses already cause enough congestion on London's roads without the driver adding to the problem in that way.
I again blame LRT and the Government for their insistence on OPO buses and OPO trains. The same problems do not arise with trains, which is probably why the amount lost on the buses is much higher than the amount lost each year on the underground, even though more people use the underground. The opportunity for fare evasion on the buses is greater because of OPO. When the GLC was responsible for LRT, it warned the Government and LRT about that, but LRT and the Government were determined to have OPO buses.
Travellers do not like OPO buses and the people who travel behind them do not like them either, as anyone who has been stuck behind such a bus in a congested road will testify. The Government are not interested in what the consumer wants, and I do not think that the management of LRT are interested either. If it were, it would not have insisted on OPO buses.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South should explain why fare evasion on buses is so much greater than it is on the underground even though more people use the underground than use the buses. I say that it is because of OPO buses, but if I have got that wrong, I will apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister. I suspect that, on this occasion at least, I have got it right. London's transportation system is being sold on a low level of service, whereas other transport systems opt for a high level of service. InterCity rightly opts for service. It is expensive, but it is a good way to travel.
The airlines go for service for broke and compete on the basis of the service that they provide. No regular air traveller would be happy to climb the stairs of a Jumbo and find that it was one-person operated. He would not like to be welcomed by the captain who would show him to his seat and come round with a hot towel and a barber's shop and say, "I have to go to the front row now because we are about to take off. If you want something to eat during the journey, come along and have a word with me." We know that that is absurd.
It is mainly working-class people who use London's buses. If business executives used them, there would be waiters and people summoning passengers to their seats. It is probably apocryphal, but it is well rumoured that, when

the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was Secretary of State for Transport, he threw a tantrum on the Central line when he found out that the train did not have a restaurant car. That is the sort of attitude we expect from Ministers, because they are not in touch with reality. They take the view, that since working-class Londoners use buses, one-person operation is suitable, and that if the passengers dodge on and off without paying, what the hell.
On the docklands light railway, the conductors are called captains. I do not know why that term was chosen. We have Captain Soames, although that is probably not a good advertisement for the rank. I was always told that anyone who made only captain in the army was a bit of a failure, but that is another matter. I do not know why the conductors are not called train brigadiers or generals. We could at least do something better for our buses than give the staff fancy names.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton spoke about the many people who use the buses. I use them and I am no toff. [Interruption.] Snappy dresser, yes; toff, no.
The docklands light railway is used by many business people. Notwithstanding that it is a new investment, that is one reason why the service is better. There is a class aspect to the Bill and to the proposals that come from the Government. One-person-operated buses are part of the class-based approach to transportation in London. I know that the Minister would hardly agree with me, but my assertion is held to be self-evident on the Opposition Benches. If we were talking about different people, we would be talking about a different service.
If this evening the Minister were to announce that the Government were prepared to reconsider the use of OPO buses, which are condemned throughout London by those who have to use them and by those in other vehicles who have to queue behind them, he would be able to deal with fare evasion at a stroke. I am sure that OPO buses have led to a great deal of alleged fare evasion. We do not know the exact figures, but it would seem that fare evasion on the buses is greater than that on the underground system.
Flat, reasonable fares are wanted. If we had an efficient LRT service and adequate staffing levels on buses and at stations, fare evasion would dwindle to almost nothing and there would be no need for the Bill. I am prepared to support the Bill, but it is an admission of failure by the Government and by LRT. I deplore the fact that it is in front of us. I hope that the Minister will take to heart some of the lessons that I have outlined.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): It might be helpful to the House if at this stage I briefly set out the Government's attitude to the Bill, a measure which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has described clearly, succinctly and efficiently.
The Government support the Bill, as they have supported London Regional Transport's previous Bills. It is surely right that those who travel on London Transport's services without paying the correct fare should be discouraged from doing so. We have heard that fare evasion is estimated to cost LT about £12 million on the underground system and about £17 million on the buses. I fully accept, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would, that those figures are estimates. How


can we know the figures unless the fares are collected? Nevertheless, the estimates are based upon professional advice, and the total sum is about £29 million—call it £30 million—in lost revenue. That is a huge burden, which has to be carried by honest passengers and by taxpayers, who in this financial year will contribute £722 million in grant to the costs of London Transport.
London Regional Transport already has powers to operate penalty fares under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and specifically on the docklands light railway under the London Docklands Railways Acts of 1984, 1985 and 1986. As there was some dissatisfaction with the powers, the Government established a working group on penalty fares in May 1986 to review the principles that should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport and to look at the existing provisions concerning LT services. The Bill has been closely based on the recommendations of the working group. The Bill benefits also from the considerable scrutiny to which the first LRT penalty fares Bill was subjected in another place.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy in allowing me to intervene. As someone who represents a constituency about 420 miles north-north-west of the Piccadilly line, I hesitated before intervening. However, I travel occasionally between Heathrow and Westminster underground station by way of the Piccadilly and District lines. On that basis, I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the sanctions that will be introduced by way of the Bill will not lead in any way to an increase in instances of assaults upon members of London Regional Transport.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's constituents, as United Kingdom taxpayers, have an interest in the Bill, because they are subsidising through grant each year the operations of LRT. Therefore, his constituents have a direct interest in ensuring that revenue is maximised.
I should like to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said and write subsequently. I can tell him, however, that British Rail has powers similar to those that are sought by means of the Bill, and they are using them with the Secretary of State's agreement on the London to Tilbury and Southend service. The evidence that is so far available to me—I shall check it again—is that about 90 per cent. of fare evasion has been eliminated on that service. I am not aware of any evidence of assaults on British Transport police or assaults or acts of violence involving other passengers. I shall check the figures and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The House will know that other Bills with penalty fare provisions have been approved by Parliament and received Royal Assent. I have in mind what was the British Rail (Penalty Fares) Bill and also what were Bills from the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive in respect of the South Yorkshire supertram and from the West Midlands passenger transport executive in respect of the Midland Metro. The House will rightly be concerned to ensure that the principles of a fair and reasonable penalty system are properly reflected in the Bill that is before it and that honest passengers are fully protected.
The promoters will respond to specific comments that are made about the Bill this evening. There will be an

opportunity for further consideration in Committee. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has already said, there is a very important aspect of the penalty fares system which the House should keep in mind, and I ask it to do so. An activating order issued by the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to bring the powers in the Bill into effect, and I must stress that no activating order will be issued unless the scheme that is proposed is fair and workable. It will be for London Transport to convince us of that.
Before any activating order is made, we shall wish to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the scheme and to protect honest passengers from being penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. The Secretary of State will also need to be satisfied that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the rules, and that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place. I understand that some concerns have been expressed by the Transport Users Consultative Committee about how the trial scheme has worked on the London to Tilbury and Southend service, and I shall be interested to read its comments. I understand that, while there are no major problems, the association has suggestions that it claims would enable the operation to be carried out more smoothly.
In addition, the Secretary of State will need to be assured that satisfactory arrangements exist for staffing ticket offices and for monitoring and repairing ticket machines. It will be necessary that he be assured also that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the scheme, that they are deployed appropriately and that they have proper identification. One of the great advantages of the scheme—I think that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will agree with this—is that, on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, British Rail and British Transport police have deployed staff on the trains and at the intermediate stations between the two termini. Rather than have staff standing at ticket gates, and therefore having nothing to do between trains, more staff have been deployed where the passengers are. That is good for safety and for reducing fare evasion.
As I have said, the experience gained from the pilot scheme on British Rail will be taken into account. It would be a curious situation, and one that would be difficult to justify to passengers and to taxpayers, if this latest penalty fares Bill from London Regional Transport were to be blocked when Parliament has approved similar provisions for other operators. Tomorrow, with the hon. Member for Vauxall (Ms. Hoey), I shall be visiting the underground stations of Stockwell and Oval in her constituency. I venture to suggest that, if I were to ask a random sample of tube passengers whether they supported the principle of the Bill, I would find that an overwhelming majority were prepared to do so. Honest passengers are not prepared to pay for the fare dodger, and I hope the House will support the Bill tonight.

Mr. Peter Snape: I too will be brief. The Opposition have traditionally cast a jaundiced eye on penalty fare Bills, particularly those which first came before us five or six years ago. Since then, there have been some signs that British Rail and London Underground management have been more prepared to listen to the views of hon. Members and the trade unions


representing those who are responsible for collecting fares. At least in this Bill passengers travelling without a ticket have up to 21 days to pay the penalty. That is an important move away from the original concept when no ticket meant an on-the-spot fine, which, understandably, led to concerns among those responsible for ticket collection and examination that the sort of situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) might arise.
At various times in my railway career, I have collected tickets, and it is not the easiest of jobs on a Saturday night. I listend with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who entertained us in his customary manner, as he is wont to do. A couple of late Saturday stints at various suburban stations might make him slightly less idealistic—if I can put it that way—about the motivation of some of those who travel on public transport without a ticket.
However, I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the somewhat cavalier attitude to fare collection by the management of London Buses and London Underground in recent years. I feel strongly that, all too often, when these Bills have been introduced, the burden of collecting fares has been placed on either the lowest-paid within the railway industry or those hon. Members who take an interest in these matters.

Dr. Godman: In my observations to the Minister, I failed to say that the tube sevice between Heathrow and Westminster is a disgrace, especially for visitors to the United Kingdom. In his examination of the problem of fare evasion, has my hon. Friend seen any comparative evidence from other systems? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) will agree that there is little fare evasion on the Glasgow subway system. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) knows, the Glasgow subway system is tiny compared with the London system. It could be put in one corner of the circle line. Nevertheless, there is little or no fare evasion in Glasgow. That may be due to the innate honesty of the Glasgow traveller.

Mr. Snape: That innate honesty is renowned worldwide. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's experience on the Glasgow underground. It was a Glasgow underground railwayman who once passed on to me the best excuse that he had ever heard for fare evasion. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Glasgow underground is a small version of the Circle line. When asked why he was travelling with a three-day old ticket, an astute railway passenger claimed that he was waiting to get to the terminus—an excuse that did not go down too well with those responsible for collecting the fare. However, that was before the days of penalty fares.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend is about to entertain us once more, so, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall allow him to do just that.

Mr. Banks: It is sweet of my hon. Friend to say such a nice thing about me. I am glad that my hon. Friend reminded us of his distinguished former career as a ticket collector. I understand that he was a world famous ticket collector; a veritable Pavarotti of ticket collectors. But he is wrong to assume that I do not know the problems of

travelling late on Saturday coming back in a carriage full of vomit and empty beer cans, with various yobbos hanging around.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend is a Chelsea supporter.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is right to point out that I am a Chelsea supporter, but that is almost a way of life in my area of east London. I have almost come to love it. Swimming through vomit is another skill that I have acquired during my years in this House. However, the presence of more uniformed officers, British Transport police and underground staff on those trains at that tune of night is surely the best way of ensuring that we all travel safely and vomit-free.

Mr. Snape: I think that we would all agree with that. I was merely trying to point out that, both as a booking clerk and as a railway guard—two jobs which, despite what my hon. Friend said, I held with complete lack of distinction throughout my long and undistinguished railway career—I was probably more apt to come into contact with the sort of undesirable characters that my hon. Friend mentioned than I would have been had I been the assistant general secretary of the Association of Broadcasting and Allied Staffs, which I think was one of my hon. Friend's more distinguished earlier occupations.
Before I was so politely interrupted, I was talking about the cavalier attitude of London Underground and London Buses management to fare collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the difficulties of the one-person operation of buses. There is no doubt that the fact that Britain's transport systems, particularly those in London, have fallen into the hands of accountants rather than operators has led to the sort of decline in service about which he and other hon. Members frequently complain. The ability to balance budgets, although it is not practised by London Underground management in particular at present, appears to be of far more value and importance when it comes to installing people in top jobs than the ability to properly run a transport system.
Twice before during debates on the Bill—I said that London Underground has tried to introduce a similar Bill —hon. Members have regaled us with stories about how difficult it is to purchase a ticket or to hand it in at the completion of a journey when travelling on London Underground late at night. That made me inquire from staff at the sharp end why that should be so. The view among many of those responsible for that job is that the current management of London Underground would rather leave stations unstaffed and ticket barriers wide open than pay the premium payments for the overtime necessary to staff the stations adequately.
We are being asked to pass this legislation without hearing from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who represents the promoters, exactly what London Underground is prepared to do to see that adequate staff are provided. He said that, where people transfer from British Rail to London Underground, providing that a board was exhibited saying that it was impossible to purchase a ticket and so on at the commencement of the journey, the penalty fare would not be payable. But that overlooks the reality of late night travel.
If there are any staff at all on stations, whether on British Rail or London Underground, it is usually a small


number, and if they are called away for any other purpose in connection with their duties and responsibilities, there is often no opportunity to purchase a ticket. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in those circumstances with no board exhibited, the passengers—the customers, as we are laughably known as these days—are still liable to the penalty payment? If so, Opposition Members will be extremely concerned.
We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the efficiency of London Underground and its new ticket machines, but by all accounts they are not efficient enough to take 50p pieces, and about £250,000—one of the rough estimates given in these circumstances—has already been lost as a result of the passion for such machines. The more adroit non-payers in our society have been clever enough to work out that a coin of another denomination and a piece of silver paper does the job at least as well as, if not better than, the authentic Bank of England 50p piece.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Clearly, anyone who boards a train without a ticket at an unstaffed station which, however, contains ticket machines will be deemed to be liable for the penalty: he will be told that he should have used one of the machines. What if the machines are not working?
At Forest Gate station, I recently tried desperately to feed a pound note into one of the machines, which simply refused to accept it. I was not prepared to stand there all day feeding a pound note into the machine, which the machine would then return; after all, my train was about to arrive.
Although the ticket was valid, had I got on the train without a ticket I would presumably have been liable for the penalty. What I should like to know—my hon. Friend may not be able to enlighten me, but perhaps he will redirect my question to those who can—is whether the inspectors will accept the fact that a machine was not working as a reason for travelling without a ticket. The fact that 99·9 per cent. of the machines may work will not help the person who happens to have encountered the 0·1 per cent.

Mr. Snape: If my hon. Friend really tried to purchase a ticket with a pound note, I am not surprised that he experienced some difficulty. As far as I am aware, pound notes are no longer legal tender.

Dr. Godman: Except Scottish pound notes.

Mr. Banks: Well, a five-pound note, then.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is beginning to confuse his denominations.

Mr. Banks: Obviously I meant a five-pound note. Inflation had left me breathless. It should have been a one-pound note, but it was a five-pound note.

Mr. Snape: I hope that the Accountant is not listening, and will pay my hon. Friend's salary in the equivalent currency at the end of this month.
Although I would not for a moment cast doubt on the scenario outlined so graphically by my hon. Friend, another scenario strikes me as likely to occur rather more often. The ticket machines of which the hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke in such glowing terms frequently bear

the legend "Exact money only". Not long ago, at Euston, eight out of nine or 10 machines bore that legend, and only one appeared to be working. Would declining the opportunity to wait for 15 minutes in a growing queue —including, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, waving a pound note—be considered a valid reason for failing to purchase a ticket, and for subsequently refusing to pay the penalty? All too often, a touching faith is displayed in those machines; given the standard of their performance, that faith is generally not merited.

Mr. Cohen: Earlier, my hon. Friend raised a good point about staffing levels on the underground, especially late at night. Could not this be yet another instance of the inadequacy of the fare evasion figures? Much of the evasion probably takes place late at night in unstaffed stations. Unless a good many inspectors are introduced in such stations, violence will increase at such times. London Regional Transport has not thought out the Bill properly: there could be a massive surge of violence.

Mr. Snape: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is not sure how the statistics—£12 million a year on the underground and £17 million a year on the buses—were arrived at; I am not sure either, and I do not think anyone else is. By its very nature, quantifying fare evasion is an inexact science. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South can exercise his customary diligence and thoroughness to give us the answer, and tell us whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is right about the times at which the bulk of fare evasion takes place.
In my view, the Bill is much better than it was. Clause 8 of the statement on behalf of the promoters not only states that the Bill
has the support of the Department of Transport",
but adds the welcome phrase:
there has been consultation with the Unions representing those who would have to implement the penalty fares scheme; further discussions will be held if the Bill is enacted.
That is certainly an advance. No such promise was made in respect of earlier Bills, which led to understandable expressions of concern and outrage on the part of those responsible for collecting penalty fares—or, at least, for cautioning the passenger-customer who travels without a ticket.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will be able to answer some of our questions. If he cannot do so tonight, I trust that he will ensure that many of the justifiable fears expressed by Opposition Members are answered properly in Committee.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Some interesting points have been raised, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He made some perceptive remarks—not least that he is a snappy dresser, although he also made it clear that the Bill was a case of the emperor's new clothes. It cannot be justified in any way that will stand up to interrogation.
My hon. Friend also went into the psychology of fare evasion. Of course no hon. Member supports such behaviour, but my hon. Friend contrasted it effectively with the naive simplicity of London Regional Transport that lies behind the Bill. As he pointed out, the level of fare


evasion in this country is the highest in Europe, but he rightly added that we should tackle the causes rather than the symptoms.
My hon. Friend made a good point about one-person operation. He asked why the so-called estimate of the amount of fare evasion was higher for buses than for trains, given that more people travel on trains than on buses and that fares are higher on the underground. He concluded that one-person operation was the reason.
We can extend the psychological argument. An inspector will get on to a bus, fine the individual concerned —shaming him in front of the other passengers—and then leave the bus. The fare evader, however, will remain on the bus, fuming and, perhaps, eventually taking out his anger on the other passengers—or, more likely, on the poor old bus driver. Of course, the same kind of thing could happen on the tube, but that would merely result in more vandalism. On a one-person-operated bus, it might result in violence.
As I said earlier in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), London Regional Transport has done no work to establish at what times and in what circumstances fare evasion takes place and who is responsible. I believe that it takes place mostly at night in unmanned stations.
London Transport is keen to cut costs and I suspect that, apart from not wanting to pay overtime, it will not employ inspectors in the first place. Therefore the Bill will have no impact on the level of fare evasion at night. If LT decided to employ those inspectors, many would be needed to collect the fares because I suspect that gangs of youths would travel without paying their fares. If those inspectors confronted such gangs late at night in unmanned stations, I am sure that it would lead to violence.
The Bill has come before the House in the past, and the issue of increased violence has been raised many times by myself and my colleagues. It has always been left unanswered. No work has been done on the Bill from one Session of Parliament to the next. LT may throw up an estimate of fare evasion, but it is unable to provide an estimate of the likelihood of violence.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who speaks for LT, made a brief speech of 11 minutes in which he offered little justification for the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: Disgraceful.

Mr. Cohen: I agree. The only reason why the hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke for 11 minutes was three telling interventions, but each time he failed to come up with an answer. The first intervention came from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who asked about the trend of fare evasion on the bus and tube over the years. He asked whether it was possible to compare levels of evasion. It is important to know that answer because I believe that there may be a correlation between the level of fares charged and fare evasion. The necessary figures should be produced so that we can make an informed assessment.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the short speech made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. That reminds me of the occasion when Mr. Canning was asked by someone whether he liked his speech. Mr. Canning replied that that person's speech was short, to which the person replied, "Yes. You know I don't

like to be tedious." Mr. Canning replied, "Yes, but it was tedious." I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, South would have made a much longer speech had he been allowed to tell us more about the bus route through my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that my hon. Friend wants to be fair and I am sure that he will recall that the hon. Member for Ilford, South was cut off in his veritable prime.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that, but the hon. Member for Ilford, South was not ruled out of order. However, his brief comments on the bus routes were wrong. He said that the No. 38 and No. 55 buses no longer stopped on Lea Bridge road because of traffic congestion. That is the line put out by LT, but when has it been its policy not to run public transport because of traffic congestion? Surely the object is to get cars off heavily congested roads. Surely that means that LT should run more buses on the roads instead of cutting services.
Only yesterday, I received a letter from LT about the Bill, which mentioned the No. 38 and No. 55 buses. Therefore it should be legitimate to mention those routes in this debate. According to LT figures, 8 per cent. of people in the catchment area use those buses to get to central London. That is a heck of a lot of people—it runs into thousands—and they are now denied those routes.
I accept that those bus routes do not represent the central point of the Bill, but my constituents have been treated in a disgracefully shabby way by the Government. LT consulted me about the Bill because it wanted to know whether I would give it decent treatment. I always give such treatment, but how about a bit of decent treatment for my constituents? I asked LT to give them their buses back, but my request was treated in a cursory and derisory fashion.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South made three incredible statements in the first few minutes of his speech after being challenged. First, he said that he did not know the trend of fare evasion and that he knew the current figures only. That was a pretty poor admission, but in some ways it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. He does this work because—

Mr. Tony Banks: He is paid a lot of money.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman claims that LT does not pay him a lot of money. I believe that he just gets his direct expenses. I think that he is doing the work for a knighthood for services to LT.
We are told that everything comes down to finding money for public services and I have no doubt that it could be found from the salaries of the bosses. However, those bosses could not even be bothered to give the hon. Gentleman a decent briefing. The hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the questions is not his fault, but the fault of those highly paid managers at LT who gave him such a poor briefing.
I should have thought that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West was obvious and sensible. Surely a sensible person attempting to guess what questions would be asked would have thought of that one. Similarly, I should have thought that my question about the breakdown of LT figures would be anticipated. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ilford, South was unable to provide the methodology behind those figures. It appears that they are plucked out of the blue.
The Minister said that the figures were based on the professional advice received by LT, but I suspect that those figures were provided by LT itself. I remind the House that this is not the first time that such a question has been asked because a Bill of this nature has been before the House on numerous occasions—this is the fifth one. Each Bill is the subject of several debates on several occasions and each time LT has been asked to substantiate the figures for fraud losses. Each time it has failed to provide the answer. All that the hon. Member for Ilford, South could say was that the figures were based on some sort of survey. What survey? Who did that survey? Again, I suspect that it was conducted by LT.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that inspectors would not impose penalties on the docklands light railway trains because they are too busy. However, there is enormous overcrowding on the rest of the underground network. If it is all right for inspectors not to impose fines when that line is busy, why are other lines being singled out?
The Minister was not much better briefed than the hon. Member for Ilford, South. He did not seem to know much about the London-Tilbury to Southend line. He said that fare evasion had been reduced by 90 per cent., but he did not know the exact figure. How can he claim that it has been reduced by 90 per cent. when the figures are not known? He failed to say how that figure was arrived at. I suspect that it was plucked out of the air by London Transport. He did not seem to know that that reduction was achieved over only a three-month period. I suspect that it will start to climb again.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely succinct, logical and clear in his argument, and I have listened to him with much interest. I am sure that the House would like to know whether he opposes the Bill and, if so, on what grounds he does so. So far, he has not disclosed his position or advanced any arguments.

Mr. Cohen: I shall disclose my arguments clearly. I am dealing with the arguments that have been advanced, which is a perfectly legitimate tactic.
The Minister made the interesting point that the collection of penalty fares presents opportunities for new fraud. People will be able to claim to be inspectors and to diddle people out of money. Will authorised inspectors wear a uniform and carry identification? There is absolutely nothing in the Bill about that.
I should like to mention the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is concerned about the Bill but is unable to be here tonight.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), because he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) are having a meeting in a W Room about the opting-out proposals for Newham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) knows well, we must split our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is in the Palace but is dealing with other business. He is as assiduous as ever in passing his views to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton.

Mr. Cohen: The note from his office says that he is unable to make the meeting tonight because he has an important health meeting to attend, but that he may be able to attend later in the evening. He saw me in the Lobby and told me that it was a meeting on an NHS trust and privatisation of health services in Newham, which is of enormous concern. We all know that the Government are about to privatise the buses, but the immediate issue of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is the health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South would like to point out that he was unsatisfied with the replies that he received from London Regional Transport to his suggestions. He is not happy with the idea that London Regional Transport will take money from people who have not paid the correct fare—spot fines—instead of taking their names and addresses. He thinks that that will cause trouble and says that London Regional Transport did not give him a satisfactory response when he raised the matter. That is typical of LRT, which has been negligent in responding to issues in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South says that London Regional Transport has no plans to install ticket machines at stations where the booking office may be closed. He feels that it is in its own interest to do that and to provide a machine that produces tickets showing where a passenger boarded in order to prevent fraud. At present, an inspector has no way of knowing where a passenger began his journey. LRT's response to that was unsatisfactory. It is a crucial point, because people who bought tickets at a different station may be accused of fraud, but that point has not been considered by LRT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South says that when he telephoned London Regional Transport yesterday he was told that the gentleman who knew about the matter would not be in until tomorrow. My hon. Friend said that that shows how much they care about their Bill. That is on a par with how LRT has treated the House tonight and how it has treated the hon. Member for Ilford, South by not giving him a proper briefing to answer basic questions.
LRT could have dealt with the issues that have been raised and Conservative Members would not have had to stay here until 10 pm. However, they know that the payroll vote will ensure the passage of the measure.
LRT's inept management has treated the House, including Conservative Members, with contempt. The Government are being forced to do LRT's dirty work when the problem could have been resolved even without this debate taking place; there are bound to be subsequent debates. Whatever the payroll vote does tonight to force the measure through, we will ensure that the issue is raised in future.
In addition to the ineptitude of LRT's management, the burden of the Bill on Parliament and so on must have resulted in considerable cost to the taxpayer. After all, this is about the fifth time that the measure has come before the House. All that could have been avoided had the management answered our questions and sorted out the various issues. Instead, the Bill has been blocked whenever it has come up for approval.
When I asked the Minister what the cost was, apart from LRT's expenditure on the Bill, I received the reply that I expected, which was that it was nothing to do with him because private Bills were not his responsibility. Did


he really mean to say that all the cuts that he had made were of no consequence? Is he not aware that, when he cuts off the money, services are reduced and fares are increased?

Mr. Freeman: The record should show clearly what is the position this year. I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that in 1991–92, the Government have increased the amount of cash grant available to LRT by £50 million. That has occurred in the middle of the financial year. It is a sign of the tremendous support that the Government have given to LRT in difficult financial circumstances.

Mr. Cohen: It is also a sign of the Government's desperation pending the forthcoming general election. The people of London know precisely what a shambles the Government have made of their transport system—how they have neglected it and run it down. The Government are desperate—as they are with unemployment and everything else—and are fiddling the figures, because the bulk of the money that has been put into London Transport has been spent on the Jubilee line. That, too, has been to get the Government out of the mess they have created over docklands by not planning in advance. Office blocks went up, but there was no infrastructure to enable people to get to and from the area. Now the taxpayer is having to pay dearly to create some infrastructure there. It is costing more than would have been the case had there been some planning.
On 6 June this year, the Financial Times commented on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on London Underground, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office at a price of £24. It said that the report blamed inadequate funding, by successive Governments, for the poor performance of London Underground train services, and it went on to give key figures, on which the Minister should comment, if not today then in due course. The paper said that London Underground, the company which is responsible for the service,
calculates that, at today's prices, it needs to spend £750 million a year. Of this, £250 million a year is just to halt the further deterioration of existing assets, another £250 million a year is to rectify the consequences of underspending in earlier years, £150 million a year is to increase the capacity of existing lines, and £100 million a year is for safety improvements following King's Cross
and the death of 31 people in the fire there.
By comparison, actual investment over the past five years averaged £290 million a year at today's prices.
The Financial Times went on to say that, in an attempt to defend the Government's record on investment in London Underground,
the public transport minister said investment spending would be £442 million this year and more than £500 million in 1991–92"—
as I pointed out, pending the forthcoming election—but still a long way from the £750 million that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said was needed.
The paper continued:
These figures include sums for the new Jubilee Line extension. The commission's report for next year's spending is £384 million—barely half what London Underground says it needs.
That gives the lie to the boasting statements that we hear time and again from the Minister about the Government's so-called investment in London Transport. Even the increases that the Government are making, pending the general election, leave LRT a long way short of what is needed to get our underground system into a decent state.
In an endeavour to discover the true cost of the Bill, the Minister having shifted the responsibility to LRT, I took the matter to that quarter. I received a reply on 5 March from the chairman, Mr. Newton, who said—this is the key point:
It would not, therefore, be possible to give you a clear simple answer to the question you have asked without the expenditure of very considerable time and cost.
He has clearly taken a leaf out of the Minister's book because he cannot state the cost of promoting such Bills. The chairman then gave examples of the cheapest and of the most expensive. He said that the cost of the Jubilee Line Extension (No. 2) Bill is currently £5·7 million. I have asked him for more details about that figure. I asked him at the beginning of April, but I have not yet had a reply about how that money is made up. The Government do not provide a grant for that. The bill is met by Londoners through their fares and through other contributions because money is removed from the poll tax grant to local authorities.
The chairman also stated that the cheapest Bill was that which dealt with the Angel because it went through unopposed. Even so, it probably cost about £75,000. How much has this Bill cost? It has been before the House five times, so one can imagine that it has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds—probably nearly £1 million. It has failed year after year to be passed, because people such as the hon. Member for Ilford, South have not been properly briefed and the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and other colleagues have not been answered. It is inept management not only to keep the Tories here until late at night, but to incur costs of about £1 million trying to promote the Bill and doing so in such an incompetent fashion.
I now deal with the substance of the Bill because time is short. I met members of the board of London Regional Transport to discuss what it has done to my constituents' buses, but I received no change. I also met members of the board to discuss the unfair levels of fares. Again, they were not interested. I cannot remember many Yiddish words—my parents would know a lot more—but at that meeting the members acted like shysters, which means con men. They enticed me to the meeting on the grounds that they had something to offer. When I got there they had nothing to offer. When I argued reasonably about what was needed to make the Bill acceptable, they turned my ideas down flat. I got the impression that the only reason they wanted to meet me was to get the briefing for the hon. Member for Ilford, South. That was the act of a group of shysters who are also inept.
I spoke to the board about fare levels. The point of trying to implement penalty fares is, allegedly, to tackle fare evasion. I told the board that there was a correlation between the high fares charged and the amount of fare evasion. The board said that there was not—it had not done any research and was not interested, but nevertheless stated that there was no correlation. I suspect that that is why it will not introduce the trends suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West.
We have the highest fares in Europe for what is, incidentally, a deteriorating service. The Evening Standard of 22 April stated:
London gets the worst fare deal in Europe".
The article said:
London's suffering commuters' crammed into overcrowded trams, Tubes and buses, had their suspicions confirmed today—they get the worst deal in Europe.


A new survey reveals that the fares they pay are the highest in Europe—nearly double those in Amsterdam or Frankfurt, almost four times as high as Rome and five times as high as Paris and Athens.
The message will embarrass Transport Secretary Malcolm Rifkind … The average travel-to-work journey in London costs £1·40, according to the figures from the Association of London Authorities. The cost in the next most expensive city, Copenhagen, is £1·18, followed by Dublin, where the average fare sinks to 85p.
At the bottom end of the scale are Rome, 36p, and Paris and Athens on 32p.
London Transport's 'Bargain' season tickets are an even worse deal. At £13·80, its three-zone travel card costs a third more than the next most expensive in Dublin and five and a half times that of Madrid's £2·44.
The average commuter fare in the 10 European cities surveyed is only 71p.
The article went on to quote people's views. The Evening Standard always gets Conservative Members to say how disgraceful things are, when in fact the Government are implementing the disgraceful measures.
The Independent, under the headline "London Transport fares the most expensive in the EC", quotes the cost of commuting in Europe. The 10 km journey fares are: Athens, 30p; Paris, 32p; Rome, 36p; Madrid, 49p; Brussels, 65p; Amsterdam, 74p; Frankfurt, 80p; Dublin, 85p; Copenhagen, £1·18p; and London, £1·40p, set against an average fare of 71p. The costs of a weekly 10-journey card are: Madrid, £2·44; Rome, 2·48; Athens, £3; Paris, £3·08; Brussels, £4·06; Copenhagen, £6·98; Frankfurt, £7·36; Amsterdam, £7·40; Dublin, £10·27; and London, £13·80, set against an average of £6·09. London's fares, for a deteriorating service, are shameful. There is a correlation between increasing fare evasion and high fares.
It is not surprising that fares are high. When other London Labour Members and I met the chairman and board of London Regional Transport, the manager of London Underground—which contributes to the high fares—said over the dinner table, "So what? These travellers are all from the A and B1 classes, the highest classes in social surveys. They can afford those fares so we can charge what we like. It is best to charge what we like." The manager was merely reiterating the comments of the LRT chairman, Mr. Newton. At an earlier Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to those comments. In effect, the chairman said,
We are pricing people off the tube. It is already overcrowded.lf we can increase prices, we can price people off it.
The statement refers to deterring people from travelling. That is what the fares policy seeks to do. The chairman and board of London Underground do not want poor people to travel on the tube. That is why the fares are so high, and the penalty fares are being introduced to target poor people. It is the old philosophy of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who thinks that the unemployed should get on their bikes. He certainly cannot tell them to get on public transport to go and look for jobs, because they are being priced off by management appointed by the Government. Those managers have paid themselves enormous sums; I shall speak about that issue later.
I have already mentioned the serious point about high fares and penalties causing increased violence. That will

occur especially late at night and on one-person-operated buses, which means that the poor old bus driver will bear the brunt of that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and I are most unhappy about the arrangements for on-the-spot fines.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend have any background information on fare dodging on Routemasters? The Bill's powers cover all London Regional Transport—rail and buses. London Routemasters are a fleet of 750 conductor-operated buses that are extremely welcome on high density routes. The Bill is based on a number of guesses made by a firm of consultants and paid for by London Regional Transport. That firm had no better way to make those guesses than anyone else but has now earned several thousand pounds as a result of being engaged by London Regional Transport. Is there a difference between fare dodging on one-person-operated buses and on Routemasters? Clearly, conductors have far more scrutiny of whether passengers have paid their fares.

Mr. Cohen: I cannot provide any figures. Those questions were asked when this Bill was before the House in the past, and we should have had answers from the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who speaks on behalf of London Regional Transport.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Bill has been introduced to continue to facilitate the sacking of conductors and to push on with the introduction of one-person-operated buses. The effects of that policy on fare evasion should have been assessed. I bet anything that, other circumstances being equal, there is less fare evasion on conductor-operated buses, because conductors go around collecting the fares.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a desperate policy to get rid of as many employees as possible, but that it would be cheaper to employ people than buy complicated buses? The ordinary rear-entrance Routemasters are much cheaper than those buses that have doors operated from the front. In general, it would be far better to employ people to prevent fare dodging than support the principle of the Bill, which puts an onus on people to ensure that they have a ticket. In effect, it says that people are guilty if they do not have a ticket and tells them that they can either pay up within 21 days or face court action. Does not my hon. Friend agree that prevention is usually far better than an attempted cure?

Mr. Cohen: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South makes is absolutely genuine.
One reason I oppose the Bill is because the buses in Leyton that go down the Lea Bridge road were savagely cut and thousands of my constituents were treated in an appalling way. I do not disguise from the House that that is one reason why I oppose the Bill; I want those buses back on the Lea Bridge road and I want the No. 38 to run to central London again.
However, I also oppose the Bill in principle because of the class discrimination that results from it, which was referred to briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. It will act as a deterrent to stop poor people travelling. If I were to give the Bill a smoother passage, I should want a differentation in the fines imposed on those on income support and those who are hooray


Henries. It is no good the Minister and others implying that, because we oppose the Bill, we are in favour of fare evasion, which is absolute nonsense. There must be proper staffing and fares set at a decent level if we are to reduce fare evasion. Those points must be taken into account.
At the meeting I also said that we should increase the penalty fare for hooray Henrys and those who can afford to pay. I would be happy for the fares to be increased for those who can afford to pay, but there should be a much lower penalty for the poor who are already being penalised with high fares. But my suggestion was rejected out of hand. London Underground wrote me a most cursory response at the last minute, which stated:
We do not accept your contention that low income groups and the unemployed will be particularly penalised nor will they be targeted as a section of society, as you believe. Therefore, we do not propose to make any changes to the Bill.
That was all it said in response to my point that there should be a differentiation in penalty fares.

Mr. Cryer: What my hon. Friend is saying is surprising in view of the fact that, if cases finish up in a magistrates court, as opposed to the summary jurisdiction that the London Transport board is seeking to obtain from Parliament, the magistrate is bound to take into account the financial circumstances of a defendant. Therefore, it appears that London Transport wants one set of rules for its own application of the measures that is quite different and separate from, and in my view inferior to, the set of rules that apply when someone is prosecuted before a magistrates court. That seems to be an unfair set of double standards.

Mr. Cohen: I absolutely agree—that is where we will find class discrimination. When an inspector goes on a tube or bus and fines someone on the spot, the hooray Henries and the A1 and B1 groups referred to by the chairman of London Underground will pay on the spot. They will take out their credit cards to pay. We do not know whether there are arrangements in the Bill for payment by credit card—that is another question to which there was no answer. It is merely stated that appropriate commercial and financial arrangements will be made, but I bet my bottom dollar that there will be a facility to allow people to pay by credit card and cheque. Those who can afford it will be able to get rid of the fine then and there, if that is what they choose to do, but those without money will not be able to do so and will be put through the mill.
In the statement sent to hon. Members, London Transport states that it wants civil proceedings to be used. It says that the penalty will be payable
on the spot, or within 21 days but, if the passenger refuses to pay the penalty, the Corporation could and do intend to institute civil, rather than criminal, proceedings for recovery, except in the cases involving flagrant dishonesty when prosecutions will be brought.
All fare evasion could be seen as flagrant dishonesty. What reason is there for the distinction except that poorer people who cannot pay on the spot will be put through the mill of the criminal process.
So much money would not have been spent on adverts telling people to get a ticket, not a criminal record, if that were not the intention. The millions of pounds that were probably spent on those adverts would have gone down the drain otherwise, so it is a safe bet that criminal

proceedings and criminal records will be kept for the poor. What follows from that but humiliation before the courts, and even vetting?
The Home Office has published a scrutiny report saying that many more people will be vetted when they apply for jobs. A poor person caught out under these procedures will find later that he cannot get a job. He will be discriminated against because his criminal record will show up, whereas a hooray Henry will have paid up right away with his credit card.
That is discrimination; that is the whiff of hypocrisy referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. Gerald Ronson gets feted and shakes hands with the Queen, while the Government regard the poor as the worst of all criminals because of some petty offence.
The sums of money involved are crucial. A London underground travel pass costs £2·70 a day from Leytonstone to central London, and the most expensive pass costs £3·10. An unemployed man looking for a job might have to follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford and travel around to try to find a job. Even someone who is not looking for a job is entitled to travel round London and make something of his life rather than letting the gloom of unemployment take it over. Such a man will have to spend £2·70 on a travel pass every day. If he buys five a week, one for every working day, it will cost £13·50.
How does that price compare with benefit rates? The Library tells me that a single person aged 16 to 17 entitled to income support may get either £23·65 or £31·15, depending on his circumstances. Someone aged 18 to 24 will get £31·15, and someone aged 25 or older will get £39·65. That could be all that such people receive, yet they are expected to spend £13·50 on travel passes. More than one third of their weekly income would be spent on fares.
We all know what has happened to poor people in the past year. Extra burdens have been imposed on them by the poll tax, fuel costs and other housing costs—rents have been going through the roof—and inflation has been high. Yet even if they buy cheap tickets, poor people can spend more than one third of their income on fares.
I could give many other examples. Someone of state pension age—which is 60 for women and 65 for men—may get as little as £52 a week to live on. People below pension age receive unemployment benefit of £41·40. So these poor people have to spend on ludicrously high fares a third of the money that they are given to live on. London Regional Transport, and the Minister, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South, and the 100 Members on the payroll vote who will troop through the Lobby tonight, all say how reasonable and justified the Bill is.
They are not prepared to allow a lower fine for the unwaged. They argue that most fare evaders are As and B1s. They do not believe in charging hooray Henries more and imposing a lower penalty on the unemployed and on 16 and 17-year-olds. The unwaged are charged less for entrance to many- other events because their economic circumstances are recognised. It is not that LRT and the Government do not recognise these circumstances—they do not care. LRT is increasing fines to price the unwaged off the tubes and the buses.
The chairman of London Underground, Mr. Tunnicliffe, does not only say that all travellers are As and B1s: he wants them to be only As and B1s. He does not want others to be allowed to travel. On-the-spot fines are a facility to enable hooray Henries to get off the hook


easily, but they will constitute yet another means of oppression and repression of the poor who dare to travel on our public transport. They are their punishment for daring to do so.
LRT was not afraid to squander about £200 million on the ticket barriers described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West as automatic rottweilers. LRT does not care about their safety implications. They are fine in places such as Paris, where the stations have wide concourses, but many of the London stations are narrow, so ticket barriers represent an enormous safety risk.
Londoners are fortunate not to have suffered another disaster like King's Cross, but when there is another one —as there will be because of the squalor and under-investment to which I have referred—probably in the next decade, the ticket barriers will contribute to the loss of life. Neither the management nor the Minister cares about that; they hope that they will not be in place when it occurs, so they think it acceptable to employ this risk strategy.
The approach has everything to do with reducing staff numbers. Many stations have no staff after 6 pm, which is when a lot of fare evasion takes place. LRT is desperate to reduce staff numbers and is keen to impose many more cuts to which I shall refer if I have the time. but decent staffing levels might provide the answer. Proper staffing levels would also provide a guarantee of safety for women and other passengers that they do not enjoy now.
Those arguments are at the heart of my opposition to the Bill, and I made them to LRT's representatives when they eventually came to see me. I have a letter in which LRT stated that it would be willing to consult right from the beginning. I asked its representatives to come to see me when they had something to offer and could discuss the matter properly—but they turned up only last week.
Only today, I was given official figures showing that unemployment in Leyton and London has risen 60 per cent. over the past 12 months. Those are the people who will be caught by the Bill. LRT's response to my plea for differential fare levels was this:
We do not accept your contention that low income groups and the unemployed will be particularly penalised. Nor will they be targeted as a section of society as you believe. Therefore, we do not propose to make any changes to the Bill.
LRT, the Minister, and the hon. Member for Ilford, South—who presented the Bill is such peremptory fashion—behave as though the case for differential fares does not exist, but it does.
Even if the differential that I seek is adopted, it will not solve the underlying problem of high fare levels that force the unwaged off the public transport network. In due course, that aspect will have to be addressed by Ministers. It will not be the Ministers who currently hold office, because the Government's rundown of the public transport system is one reason why they will be thrown out at the next general election. However, their successors will have to tackle the issue of fare and income levels, so that poor people can ride.
When, at the beginning of my remarks, I referred to the comments of other hon. Members, the Minister was quick to rise to his feet to ask when I would get to the heart of my speech. Now he sits quietly, because he is not

interested. He does not want to tackle the issue of fare levels being more than half the amount that 16 and 17-year olds receive in income support. It seems that he declines responsibility for fare levels, even though he is the Minister for Public Transport—and the secret hand behind the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Ilford, South.
I and my constituents are wondering whether there will be a bus service left on which penalty fares can be applied. I wish that I had more time, because I could say a great deal about deregulation. I have already raised the matter in the House and spoken about the great concerns of many organisations and constituents, who fear that deregulation and privatisation will mean that bus services will be slashed to ribbons. With privatisation, companies will want to go for the profitable routes at profitable times, and other routes will not run.
Recently, I wrote to LRT on behalf of local doctors and asked whether it could send one of the hoppers that it claims make such massive improvements to the new Langthorne health centre where there is great demand. I was told that LRT could not do that. It was not interested in providing a public service. With privatisation, public service will go out of the window. Routes will be run for profit. What use are penalty fares if there are no bus services?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is being very good about keeping in order, but he is just beginning to stray from the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that other priorities should be dealt with before the House deals with this Bill.
We are worried that buses will not be operating because of the policies adopted by LRT and the problems that it has not tackled while it has been busy wasting £1 million on the Bill. For example, I have a letter from the leader of Hackney council saying that he is concerned about the Chelsea to Hackney route. Unfortunately, LRT has not drafted a Bill to implement this much-needed route.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South discussed the matter with me briefly and used what I can only call coercion, although it was not from him. He said that LRT would not introduce the Chelsea to Hackney Bill until the penalty fares Bill went through. That argument was used to try to bounce the Bill through. However, LRT has not even drafted the Bill on the Chelsea to Hackney route, let alone put it before the House. So far, it has introduced five Bills, but the one that should have priority has not been introduced. All the established transport and passenger organisations say that such a Bill should have priority even over that for the Jubilee line.
Clearly, the game that the management are up to is trying to bounce through this Bill—which has not been properly thought out or defended and on which it has not briefed the House, or even the hon. Member for Ilford, South—by using the argument that other measures are behind it in the queue and will not be introduced until this Bill is passed. That is scandalous.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman is talking a certain amount of rubbish. I discussed the matter with him and explained that, if LRT was losing £29 million a year because of fare evasion, it could not use this money for worthwhile projects such as that which he mentioned. In


the interests of the fare-paying passenger, the sooner that an improved public transport system is introduced, the better.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes an argument for London Transport management getting their finger out and solving the problems that have been mentioned by the objectors to the Bill.
The price that I ask is not excessive. I want the No. 38 bus reinstated on the Lea Bridge road/west end route. That is not a great deal to ask. When London Transport cut a bus on the Wandsworth route, the Tories protested and it was reinstated. I want the same treatment for Leyton. Penalty fares should be increased for hooray Henry types and reduced for those who are unemployed or on income support. The intervention by the hon. Member for Ilford, South showed that London Transport should have made a deal and acted reasonably. London Transport came to me last week merely to find out my arguments so that it could brief the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry that I missed a short portion of my hon. Friend's speech. I went outside for some fresh air and someone forced me to drink a pint of beer. I am following his argument, but he should tell the House that he does not object to the Bill simply because of the way in which he was treated about his local bus route. There are objections in principle, but my hon. Friend's present argument might lead him to be accused of opposing the Bill for understandable but not necessarily acceptable reasons. He has advanced a good case—that the Bill should be opposed because of its terms on fare evasion, which attempt merely to address the symptoms.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that someone will force my hand to lift a pint of beer. It is legitimate to raise the issue of the No. 38 bus. The private Bill system is not good, but that is the way it operates.
I do not ask for anything special but for the reinstatement of a London Transport cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said that I should object in principle to the Bill. While he was out, I dealt with that at length. If the Government Whip is willing to waive the 10 o'clock rule, I shall explain it again and raise many more issues. I have spoken in great detail about the level of fares and the treatment of my poorer constituents. They are being treated shabbily and will suffer class discrimination because of the way that the system will operate. They will get criminal records.
The cost of presenting the Bill probably approaches £1 million—certainly more than the £75,000 of the cheapest private Bill. Because LRT management are so inept, they have taken up the time of hon. Members with a Bill that does not deal with a serious potential strike in my area brought about by Government policies on tendering. The Government are provoking a strike and hope to sack workers and disband the trade unions that defend them.
If that happens, there will be no buses on which to impose penalty fares. If there is tendering and private companies provide services, we shall be giving them a blank cheque. Are we giving a cowboy operator the power to impose penalty fares? What commercial and financial arrangements will be made to ensure that the moneys do not go into the cowboy operator's pocket?
The management of London Transport at the Forest Gate branch are trying to force its workers to work longer hours. They are, of course, highly skilled workers. London

Transport is good at producing glossy brochures, and I have one of them. It refers to LT's wonderfully skilled drivers. They are even extremely good at collecting fares. The management are trying to force the Forest Gate men to accept a pay freeze and to work up to 20 per cent. more hours.
Management are trying to impose a 48-hour week, which is the maximum that the European social charter states that any employee should work. Of course, the charter is being blocked by the Government. The Secretary of State for Employment wants workers to work even longer hours. It is disgraceful that the Forest Gate management should be asking their employees to accept a pay freeze and to work longer hours. In my opinion there will be a strike. An enormous dispute is building up, and it has been provoked by London Transport.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish only to underline how skilled the drivers and conductors are, and always have been. Indeed, the Prime Minister was refused a job as a conductor when he applied. Imagine how many better Prime Ministers manqué are now working on the buses.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister will have it on his record that he was rejected as a potential conductor and rejected by the electorate, as he will be after the next general election.

Mr. Banks: We shall clip his ticket, do not worry.

Mr. Cohen: The Prime Minister will certainly pay the penalty, if not the fare.
The letters that I have received from a representative of the Transport and General Workers Union about the Forest Gate management and the potential strike will result in questions being tabled. He asks why access was allowed to competitors' tenders. He wants to know why tenders were so low that wages were reduced. What a farce. The Government always proclaim the introduction of competitive tendering, yet in this instance it was a fraud. It was phoney. The result is that the management are seeking to make drivers pay by increasing their working hours by 20 per cent. for no additional pay.
Competitive tendering is a farce when one party is allowed to see the other tenders. Of course a strike is being provoked. The TGWU representative wants to know why management sought to lengthen the working week, and why routes were retained in the absence of a consenting work force. These issues relate to penalty fares. A strike is being provoked, and services will be cut as a consequence.
Threatening letters have been sent to bus drivers in my constituency. Subsequently, the management will bring in hatchet men to reduce services. That will have a consequential effect on penalty fares. The buses will not be there to run. Therefore the estimate that was given is nonsense.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is clearly scrabbling around for extra material just to fill up the time, so perhaps I can help by asking a question. He and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have delayed the Bill for up to two years. Has he calculated the cost of that delay and how much it has cost the fare-paying public on London Transport?

Mr. Cohen: I wish that we could cost the delay and that we had some decent figures. If the hon. Gentleman had


been here at the start of the debate, indeed throughout the debate, he would know that one of the points that has been made over and over again is that we have not had any decent substantiated figures throughout the Bill's progress.
However, hundreds of my constituents have suffered as a result of the cuts on the 38 and 55 bus routes down the Lea Bridge road. That has been substantiated by the Save our Buses Committee. If London Transport had done a deal on that, whatever costs had been incurred would not have been incurred. The fault lies at the door of inept management appointed by the Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) was not here at the beginning of the debate, when pertinent points were being made to the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who spoke on behalf of the promoters. We do not have an accurate figure for fare evasion—that is the whole point —but if we are to use the figures that have been provided in the promoters' explanatory statement in support of the Bill, we must estimate that the two-year delay to the Bill has cost about £58 million—a not inconsiderable amount of money.

Mr. Cohen: If that is the true cost, London Transport could have run my bus down the Lea Bridge road and made the concession for which I asked with millions of pounds in hand. That must be inept management on an enormous scale.

Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cohen: No, I shall not give way now, because there is only a few minutes to go. I am not scratching around for material. I have tonnes of material. I could go on for another 10 hours.
It is the job of management that should be put out for competitive tendering, not the jobs of those who work on the buses. The chairman's salary increased from £73,286 in 1987–88 to £108,343 in 1989–90, and it rose by a further 25 per cent. to £130,000 a year in 1990–91. But the Minister will not say by how much his salary will be increased next year. If the other privatised industries are anything to go by, he will get another huge whack. The Minister should come clean on what he will pay the chairman.
In 1987–88, 61 members of management received more than £30,000 per year. In 1989–90, it was 366. The number has rocketed and I bet that that trend will continue. The inept management revealed by the Bill has cost millions of pounds. The time of the House has been wasted. Conservative Members who are drifting in now have all had their time wasted tonight by that inept management—

Mr. Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 60.

Division No. 201]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, A. J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Bellingham, Henry





Bellotti, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bendall, Vivian
Howells, Geraint


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jack, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jackson, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Janman, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kilfedder, James


Bowis, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knowles, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Lee, John (Pendle)


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carr, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Mans, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mates, Michael


Couchman, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Miller, Sir Hal


Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moate, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector


Eggar, Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evennett, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Farr, Sir John
Paice, James


Favell, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Fearn, Ronald
Patten, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Fookes, Dame Janet
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forman, Nigel
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Portillo, Michael


Forth, Eric
Raffan, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Redwood, John


Franks, Cecil
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Freeman, Roger
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


French, Douglas
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gale, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shersby, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Sims, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Speller, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Steen, Anthony


Grist, Ian
Stern, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Hague, William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Harris, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hayes, Jerry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thorne, Neil


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tracey, Richard






Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. David Evans.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Leighton, Ron


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lewis, Terry


Boyes, Roland
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cox, Tom
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Gordon, Mildred
Soley, Clive


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hoyle, Doug
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ingram, Adam



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Tony Banks and


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Harry Cohen.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 49.

Division No. 202]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Buttertill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carr, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellotti, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas





Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Farr, Sir John
Miller, Sir Hal


Favell, Tony
Mills, Iain


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moate, Roger


Fookes, Dame Janet
Monro, Sir Hector


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus
Paice, James


Fraser, John
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


French, Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Redwood, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Grist, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shersby, Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Sims, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Harris, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hayes, Jerry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Steen, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Stern, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jackson, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Janman, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thorne, Neil


Kilfedder, James
Thurnham, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tracey, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Tredinnick, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Trippier, David


Knapman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Wallace, James


Knowles, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lawrence, Ivan
Ward, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Watts, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wheeler, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


Lord, Michael
Wilshire, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Mans, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Mates, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Mr. David Evans.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cox, Tom
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cryer, Bob
Gordon, Mildred


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Haynes, Frank


Dixon, Don
Home Robertson, John






Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lamond, James
Rooney, Terence


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Harry Cohen and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the business motion which comes next on the Order Paper is not debatable but that, if the motion had been taken yesterday and not withdrawn by the Government, we could have 'debated it for at least an hour yesterday? Are not the Government deliberately gagging Parliament by tabling this motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is correct. The motion is not debatable.
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Sittings of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 54.

Division No. 293]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carr, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellotti, David
Davis, David (Boothterry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Bowis, John
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fearn, Ronald


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Graham
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas





Gill, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Paice, James


Grist, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hague, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Portillo, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raffan, Keith


Harris, David
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shersby, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Sims, Roger


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jack, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thorne, Neil


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thurnham, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawrence, Ivan
Tredinnick, David


Lee, John (Pendle)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wallace, James


Lightbown, David
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Sir John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Mans, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Wolfson, Mark


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Yeo, Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Mills, Iain
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Beggs, Roy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
McMaster, Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McWilliam, John


Cox, Tom
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L.


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Ross, William (Londonderry E)






Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Paul Flynn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill completed its passage in another place on 17 June. It will enable effect to be given in the law of the United Kingdom to certain provisions of the protocol on inspection incorporated in the treaty on conventional armed forces in europe—the CFE treaty. The Bill has two purposes: first, to create rights of access, entry and inspection for the purpose of conducting challenge inspections under the protocol on inspection and secondly, to confer certain privileges and immunities on inspectors and transport crew members in connection with all inspections under the protocol.
Before turning to the Bill, I will give a brief introduction to the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe and its system for inspections. The CFE treaty was signed at Paris on 19 November 1990 by 22 states, all 16 members of the North Atlantic Alliance, including, of course, the United Kingdom, and a further six states, which were then members of the Warsaw pact, including the Soviet Union. The treaty was negotiated at a time of very great change in central and eastern Europe, and signed shortly after German unification and with the Warsaw pact drawing to a close.
The treaty is part of a process, a stage in the negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe. It is now being followed in Vienna by negotiations to limit manpower—the so-called CFE-1A negotiations, between the same 22 participants. We hope that they can be completed by the time of the Helsinki conference on security and co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting in March next year. Further ahead, we look forward to a new process of dialogue and negotiation after the Helsinki meeting, open to all 35 CSCE members, which will enhance stability and openness in military affairs in Europe. Informal consultations will start in Vienna in September to prepare for that.
The treaty is of necessity detailed and technical. For the purposes of the Bill it is sufficient to note that certain categories of conventional armaments and equipment—battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters—are limited by the treaty. Those are known as treaty-limited equipments—TLEs in the jargon. The limitations apply within the area of application of the treaty, which is the European land area from the Atlantic to the Urals. Each state has to limit and, if necessary, reduce—destroy or convert to other use—its holdings of treaty-limited equipments to specific numbers. The treaty includes detailed provisions on the exchange of information and on verification.
The verification regime is contained in the protocol on inspection, in accordance with which the parties are given


specific rights which will enable them to monitor each other's compliance with the provisions of the treaty. The inspection regime is two-pronged.
First, the treaty creates the concept of an object of verification. That means, a military unit or installation at which treaty-limited equipment is regularly present or normally held. They include, for example, regimental and other military headquarters and garrisons, air bases, storage sites, sites where destruction of equipment takes place under the protocol on reductions, and the like. Parties must declare where those are located and what equipment is held there, and must allow inspectors from other parties to visit the sites to check that the information given is correct. At those declared sites, no party is entitled to refuse inspection of objects of verification, except in certain very limited circumstances. In practice, in the United Kingdom, all objects of verification will be Government-owned or controlled.

Mr. George Robertson: What would happen if a treaty partner, the Soviet Union for example, designated an area of Cheltenham that includes GCHQ? Would there be a command inspection of the facilities there? Would that be possible for members of the Red army, before it was possible for Members of this House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The sort of equipment which comes under the treaty and which I have itemised would not be disclosed at a site of that kind. Of course, it would be open to a Warsaw pact country to carry out a demand inspection at sites in the United Kingdom, and I cannot prejudge what the Government's attitude to that would be. Clause 2(1) gives the Secretary of State discretion over issues of authorisation; it uses the word "may", not "shall", and those words are in the Bill because they form part of the treaty.
We can ensure that access can be given to all objects of verification in the United Kingdom within the time limits and under the conditions prescribed in the treaty, without the need for legislation. Allies with forces stationed in the United Kingdom also will be bound to accept inspections.
The second aspect of the verification regime is the so-called challenge inspection of specified areas. Those provisions mark a new, and very welcome, step in arms control verification. They are designed to give each party the right to inspect any place in another party's territory, whether Government-controlled or not, to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are not being avoided—for example, by the relocation of treaty-limited equipment away from military premises or by the failure to declare all objects of verification.
It is likely that challenge inspections will usually be made at military sites that are not declared sites—that is, those that do not have objects of verification present at them—such as other Government-controlled sites or large industrial warehouses, owned or controlled perhaps by major defence contractors. But the treaty gives inspectors the right to inspect any building or site within the United Kingdom capable of holding treaty-limited equipment, or to demand access to any area to check for the presence of treaty-limited equipment, subject again to certain rights of refusal.
In summary, the essential elements of the challenge inspection regime are: the Government must be able to

secure access to any premises or sites within specified areas chosen by the inspecting country; and in practice, under the time limits agreed in the treaty, there will be no time to allow the owner or occupier of premises to argue before a court that his premises should not be inspected.
The Bill is needed to give effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under the CFE treaty in respect of verification teams on our territory. Without it, we should not be able to ratify the treaty, which we hope to do in the autumn.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his clear explanation of the elements of the Bill, which my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome both for itself and as a sign of progress across the whole spectrum of arms control.
A chapter in arms control ended with the signing on 19 November last year of the conventional forces in Europe treaty. It recognised the end of the cold war and marked a further step in the new east-west security relationship.
We recall that in 1975, when the Helsinki process was established, there existed the two blocs of the east and west, together with the intermediate group of neutral and non-aligned countries. A measure of the changes that have occurred since 1975 is the dissolution of the Warsaw treaty organisation and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary and Czechoslovakia and from Poland by the end of next year.
Only 10 years ago, President Brezhnev of the Soviet Union was able, in a quite different world, to boast to his 26th party congress:
In literally all fields, world socialism"—
as he defined it—
is advancing steadily.
Today, we find ourselves in a different context. President Gorbachev will shortly seek financial assistance from the G7 countries, Mr. Yeltsin heads the Russian federation, the Baltic states seek their independence and the Warsaw treaty is no more.
It is perhaps a paradox that treaties such as the CFE, which were deemed so necessary in the light of events when they were formulated, are today much less necessary. The rapidity of world change has overtaken the need for them. The world has moved on. Problems that once seemed insuperable, and which lay behind the CFE treaty, are the problems of yesteryear. Today we face new challenges in arms control—particularly that of proliferation, which has attained a new significance at a time when other challenges are being met.
The November 1990 CFE summit was a watershed. Subsequent events served to emphasise that there is no finality or ultimate haven in international affairs—only ports of call that offer a temporary respite before we set sail again.
Since last November, a range of new problems has arisen to pose new challenges in arms control. They include the Gulf war and its consequences—and in only the past few days, we have seen the difficulty of verification in Iraq, with that country's grudging admission that it has sought to develop a nuclear capacity.
The new Germany has come into being, there is an acceleration of the intergovernmental conferences that are to be held later this year, and a debate has begun on the


defence security component for the new Europe. We are witnessing also the resurgence of the old nationalisms in Yugoslavia.
There are encouraging signs in South Africa and China, but, alas, the nuclear facility in Algeria recently spotted by satellite suggests that there is a problem there. We face new hopes and new fears. Finally, within this catalogue of changes since November last year, there are the events in the middle east, the hopes that were raised after the Gulf war, and the dashing of those hopes despite the valiant efforts of Mr. Baker. The middle east remains a major threat to world peace.
As a counter to the argument that the debate has moved on, we can examine the difficulties arising from the details in the treaty since November last year—the manoeuvrings give some idea of the serious issues at stake—and the importance of carefully considering the wording of the schedule to the Bill. The House will be aware of the reasons for the delays since November last year. Differences of interpretation surfaced in two key sectors.
First, there was the Soviet resubordination of over 2,500 tanks, armoured combat vehicles and artillery, combined, to naval coastal defence units, so as to exclude the equipment from the treaty limitation obligations. Of those 2,500 items, 900 were tanks—some 75 per cent. of the tank force size in the British Army now, before the proposed cuts. That shows the strength of the Soviet army. Secondly, in the months preceding the treaty signature, the Soviets transferred 57,000 items from the area of application—the Atlantic—to the Urals, which was against the spirit, if not the letter of the November treaty.
It was encouraging that the USSR found no defenders of those actions among former Warsaw pact countries. After a US compromise proposal was tabled in April, the stalemate was broken and by the end of last month, the issues had finally been resolved, on the basis that the NATO countries would allow the USSR to keep those items assigned to coastal defence units provided that it destroyed an equivalent number of such items within the Atlantic to the Urals area. Furthermore, the USSR agreed to let western inspectors visit those coastal defence units, but the inspection regime will be less thorough than under the terms of the treaty. One understands that this was the result of efforts to achieve a compromise, but it is difficult to see why it should be so in principle. The USSR has agreed to destroy 14,500 of the 57,000 items that were moved east of the Urals.
As the Minister said, the wrangling over the CFE delayed moves to open negotiations on personnel a category ultimately excluded from the CFE to ensure that it was ready for signature at the November summit, which shows that summits impose their own timetables. The CFE-1A personnel negotiations will lead to problems—for example, the dilemma of how to negotiate when it can no longer be bloc to bloc, and how one defines symmetries and parities within the new context, given that some think that these concepts are redundant. It will help the House if the Minister says a little more about the prospects for CFE-IA and the inspection regime.
The first major test of new agreements reached last November has been posed by the internal problems in Yugoslavia. In terms of power bases, the European Community has played a far more significant role than the CSCE. That certainly shows present realities, although in future the CSCE will be able to play a stronger role.
Perhaps the Minister will say more about the strategic arms reduction talks. The United States slowed the pace on START while there were outstanding disputes about CFE. However, in the past month there has been substantial movement on START, which aims to scrap 40 to 50 per cent. of the United States and USSR strategic nuclear arsenals. The treaty will allow each of them 16,000 delivery systems and 6,000 warheads. In the past few days, the press has been full of the visit to Washington on Thursday and Friday of the Soviet Foreign Minister and his team of experts. It is assumed that progress at that meeting will be so rapid that it will pave the way for a super-power summit before the end of the month. On the basis of those press reports, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office optimistic that the START negotiations will be concluded by the end of the month in time for the summit?
The CFE talks were also meant to trigger SNF negotiations. Some observers claim that full-blown negotiations are unlikely because the Soviet Union has withdrawn its SNF from the former German Democratic Republic and NATO has abandoned the search for a replacement for the Lance missile. All nuclear artillery is also to be phased out. There is an argument about whether SNF negotiations are relevant in this new context. NATO is to produce an SNF mandate by the autumn and it looks as though it wishes SNF negotiations to proceed. In the light of those fundamental changes, is there any reason for the SNF negotiations?
I shall not give a catalogue of other arms control negotiations that are under way on chemical weapons, testing, a partial test ban treaty and biological weapons. Suffice it to say that in the past major obstacles have been placed in the way of negotiations on all those matters. As a result of the co-operation between the super-powers, a new spirit now seems to be abroad, enabling us to look forward to significant progress in each of those areas.
The United States claims that a treaty is possible on chemical weapons by mid-1992, and wants the 39-nation UN disarmament conference to remain in permanent session until a treaty has been signed. One of the key sticking points has been United States and western objections to mandatory challenge inspections. Is the breakthrough in CFE on those inspections relevant to chemical weapons?
There has been rather less progress on the partial test ban treaty. The two super-powers as were have ratified protocols to the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty which was signed in June last year. The biological and toxic weapons convention of 1972 was the first multilateral arms control treaty. The third review conference on that convention will be held in September and is likely to focus on ways to improve the convention. The biological weapons treaty has no verification provisions. Is the breakthrough on verification in CFE relevant to the biological weapons treaty?
As for arms control in the middle east and the disillusion after the high hopes at the end of the Gulf conflict, we welcome the proposals of President Bush, which he announced on 29 May, aimed at banning chemical and biological weapons, freezing and eventually scrapping the arsenals of ballistic missiles such as Scuds, banning nuclear weapons and ending Israel's production of nuclear material.
We very much favour the proposed United Nations register of arms sales, which should shame the sellers into


curbing their appetites for profit and the buyers into reducing their appetites for ever more sophisticated weapons. Perhaps the Minister will comment on arms control in the middle east, which is still the most volatile area of the world. It is the area that is most combustible and the one most likely to lead to armed conflagration.
It is clear that new ground has been broken for verification with the CFE treaty. It is based on the detailed exchange of military information between the parties and, as the Minister has properly underlined, provisions to carry out inspections. The key to the treaty is that it involves reciprocal obligations. Even though we in Britain may find some of the obligations onerous, it is necessary for us fully to comply to ensure that there is corresponding compliance by other treaty partners.
I ask the Minister some questions about the powers of CFE inspectors to have access to premises. Have the Government given any thought to the provision of compensation to private companies that may find that their production process, for example, has been halted as a result of an inspection under the terms of the treaty, and may suffer damage as a result? Is there provision for compensation, financial or otherwise? If there is, what are

the Government proposing to do? It is clear that there can be inspections of Government premises and of industry with substantial Government involvement. What guarantees can there be that the provisions of the treaty will not be used for other than military purposes, such as industrial espionage? Are there sufficient guarantees within the terms of the treaty to prevent facilities from being thus misused?
The Opposition accept that the overall scope of the Bill is limited to what is absolutely necessary to comply with the treaty obligations that were entered into in the Paris summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in November 1990. We recognise, too, that the implementation of that agreement of last November is potentially of great benefit to European security. We recognise further than the challenge procedures under the terms of the treaty are important in themselves in creating a climate of confidence and are a possible precedent in other areas. As I have said, the challenge inspections which could be implemented for the first time under the treaty, could feed into the chemical weapons treaty. They are therefore a considerable bonus. They could also be relevant in terms of biological weapons.
We are convinced, having read the treaty, that confidence breeds confidence. We look forward to increasing and positive movement across the spectrum of arms control in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Bruce George: My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to the Paris summit last autumn. It was probably the height of expectation not only of the arms control process succeeding at long last, but of peace breaking out and a new world order probably being established.
The enthusiasm was somewhat tempered by a number of factors, not the least being the allegations against the Soviet Union of cheating. Between 1989 and 1990 the Soviet Union managed, Paul Daniels style, to lose 77,910 items that hitherto it had declared. That somewhat took the gloss off the existing situation. It meant that the strategic arms reduction treaty would not be signed. Mercifully, the log jam has been broken and trust is being re-established. The bilateral agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States has generally resolved the dispute about whether the Soviet Union was cheating, to the satisfaction of all sides. However, arms control is now seriously back on the agenda. We could never have allowed it simply to wither away.
An important element in arms control is verification and inspection. Indeed, that is a critical and highly controversial element of arms control. Arms control requires trust, particularly between countries that for a generation, and even longer if one wishes to be more historical, have been in a state of semi-war. That trust takes time to establish. It would be naive to assume that one simply accepts in good faith what the other alliance says it will do in a treaty. The lesson of the allegations of Soviet cheating surely confirm that view. It would be equally naive to assume, however effective verification and inspection are, that they are anything more than a panacea, and that somehow establishing a decent inspection regime will remove anxieties and the threats to one's security and the security of one's alliance.
Verification and inspection are important, but they must be seen as a supplement to other approaches to arms control and disarmament. There will still be an important role for satellite reconnaissance and what is euphemistically called national technical means. It is important to have regular and consistent exchanges of data and a much greater transparency of armed forces and society than exists now.

Sir Dudley Smith: Like me, the hon. Gentleman was a member of a European organisation very much involved in defence, and he will know just how sophisticated satellite reconnaissance is compared with what it was five or 10 years ago. Is he aware that considerable progress is now being made in data gathering via satellites, through the Western European Union and probably also through the hon. Gentleman's North Atlantic organisation, which considerably supports what he, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) have been saying, and that that is to be welcomed?

Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention. Satellite reconnaissance is important. However, one of the lessons of the Gulf war is that satellite reconnaissance on its own, however sophisticated, is simply inadequate. Anyone who has observed pictures taken by satellite will have seen that they are not sufficient. One knows now the difficulties that the allies had in detecting the extent to which Iraq had succeeded in developing nuclear weapons.

Despite all the superior satellite reconnaissance we still appear to have been left very much in the dark about the extent of the Iraqi capability, which is now becoming clear, not so much as a result of satellite reconnaissance as of Iraq's fear that it might be bombed again.
Although there are apparently simple solutions to the problems of inspection and verification, a wide spectrum is appearing. One example is the "open skies" arrangement, and I hope that a treaty will emerge soon.
It is important to have adequate confidence and security building measures, which have long been seen as the poor relation of the arms control process. It is also important to make the observation of military exercises more sophisticated, to establish more conflict prevention centres and, no doubt, to use traditional means—another euphemism, denoting covert activities and spying. Let no one imagine that the KGB, or even its western equivalents, face immediate unemployment.
Let me concentrate for a while on one of that range of methods: inspection. Under the conventional forces in Europe treaty, there are four types of inspection: inspections of declared sites, challenge inspections within specified zones, inspections to witness reductions and inspections to witness what is described as certification. There is no right of refusal for inspections of declared sites, or for certification or reduction inspections. The number of inspections that can be carried out is clearly defined in the CFE treaty and includes challenge inspections, which are our principal concern this evening. Under the treaty, a joint consultative group will be set up to address compliance or circumvention and to resolve ambiguities or differences of interpretation.
We are gaining considerable experience. On-site inspection, and inspection generally, has become a routine part of the arms control process. Following the conference on disarmament in Europe and, in particular, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, inspection has become institutionalised. On-site inspection is a vital component of the verification of agreements. Shortly, following the CPE treaty, we shall see the introduction of more inspections. In the event of treaties on chemical weapons and strategic arms reduction, there will probably be almost as many people running around each other's countries inspecting as were defending them hitherto.
I do not mean to deprecate the achievements of arms control so far, but there are problems. The process is expensive for both the country that is inspecting and the country that is being inspected; it is costly in terms of both manpower and opportunity costs. To shepherd teams of inspectors, which in turn can split up into sub-groups, requires an enormous amount of organisation. It requires the deployment of people who are skilled in the task of inspection and receiving inspections. It can also be very disruptive; not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, to the company that might be inspected—I suspect that that will not happen, bearing in mind what the Minister said—but to military establishments that will be inspected principally by the Soviet Union.
I suspect, however, that the task facing the Soviet Union will be infinitely more complicated and expensive. The Soviets are likely to be inspected by a range of alliance countries but, because of the disintegration of their alliance, they will have only their own means to inspect other countries—including, I suspect, countries that were formerly members of the alliance that they led.
The task of verification and inspection will be difficult in the case of chemical weapons. In order to implement and monitor the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, an on-site inspection agency was established in the United States which had infrastructure establishments that crossed 19 time zones. The CFE treaty is more restricted geographically, but the task will be more complicated than that under the INF treaty because of the larger number of sites where treaty-limited items will be stored.
Inspection must operate according to certain legal principles and a number of goals must be set. One of those must be to provide greater warning time for each alliance. However, one suspects that should any country contemplate aggression it would hardly be likely to take inspectors to sites where those acts of aggression were about to be perpetrated. I do not believe that we should assume that inspection and verification will lead to greater security through their ability to provide a sudden warning of attack. However, inspection is likely to contribute to a greater deterrent effect and confidence building, which are more important than an increased warning time.
The inspection teams must follow certain rules. Those inspections must be sufficiently intrusive to give a reasonable assurance to the inspecting country that cheating is likely to be revealed. More important, that inspection must be sufficiently intrusive to encourage the countries inspected to understand that if they try to pull a fast one, it will be revealed with potentially disasterous consequences. Short-notice inspections are an important means of discouraging cheating.
All inspections must be sufficiently comprehensive, although I accept that they can never take all the sites within their purview. However, it is possible statistically to determine a limited number of inspections, which should be adequate.
It is important to obtain adequate information. The base line data must be extensive and agreed beforehand. Notwithstanding Soviet attempts to evade the CFE treaty, which they were obliged to go back on, many have reached the conclusion that the Soviets have largely complied with their obligations under the INF treaty. They have permitted many of the required inspections.
We must not heap all our hopes of eradicating the Soviet threat on the inspections; the Soviets would be unwise to take a similar view. On-site inspections and inspections in general are merely two of a number of tools that must be used; they are not a panacea. This Bill will be replicated in one form or another by many countries in NATO and the former Warsaw pact. Once the legislation is implemented and the inspectors get to work, that will contribute significantly to a reduction in tensions. Therefore, the Bill must be welcomed by all hon. Members.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not seek to emulate the tour d'horizon of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) or the more technical exposition of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who speaks with much authority on these matters based on his long interest in them and on his long membership of the North Atlantic Assembly.
It is appropriate that we should be debating the Second Reading of the Bill on the occasion of the publication of the White Paper on defence for 1991. The White Paper's central thesis is that the reduction in tension between east and west has reached the stage where it can be asserted with some confidence that we have achieved the end of the cold war. The formal dissolution of the Warsaw pact in the past 10 days serves only to underline the accuracy of that assertion.
I have always believed that arms control and disarmament were most likely to be achieved by the hard bargaining that formed part of treaty negotiation, and that mutual reduction, enforced by treaty, was much more likely to be effective than anything unilateral.
Where I part company to some extent with the hon. Member for Swansea, East is on his suggestion that perhaps the conventional forces in Europe treaty had been superseded by the speedy passage of events since it was first promulgated. It cannot be regarded as something that is now part of history, the necessity for which can no longer be justified. I firmly believe that progress on the strategic arms treaty would not have been achieved but for the conventional forces in Europe treaty. I see the latter, essentially, as the key by which the door to the former can be opened. It is notable that, since the CFE treaty has been recognised and the difficulties eliminated, progress on the strategic arms reduction treaty has been notable—one might almost say breakneck.
These matters are never easy, as we know from the difficulties created by the Soviet Union's attempt to assign certain divisions from the army to the navy. It is wrong to assume that, because the Soviet Union has embarked on a different path from the one that it has followed for 40 years, everything will be sweetness and light, that negotiation will not need to be hard and sometimes abrasive and that verification will not have to be rigorous.
It must also be noted that the treaty that we are discussing creates rights in our favour and, as has been acknowledged, parallel obligations. In discharging those obligations, the United Kingdom and its citizens may be put to inconvenience or indeed to embarrassment. The success of the attempt to limit conventional forces in Europe depends of the mutual obligations in the treaty.
We are entitled to feel some sense of achievement about a treaty that controls conventional forces in Europe, but we cannot allow this occasion to pass without recognising that, as tension in east-west relations appears to have abated, the possibilities for conflict elsewhere in the world appear to have become much more likely. That should cause us soberly to reflect on the fact that, although there may be more comfort among European countries, elsewhere in the world there are still many opportunities for conflict, which are unpredictable and may arise at any time.
We should be grateful for what this treaty achieves, but recognise that it does not provide anything approaching a universal bulwark against conflict or difficulty elsewhere in the world. I hope that the Bill will receive a unanimous Second Reading.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that the Bill, important and welcome as it is, is part of our attempt to seal the armistice in the cold war that has


divided the world so destructively since 1945, and is off focus from the point of view of the real dangers that will confront us in the coming decade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to confidence breeding confidence. We also know that suspicion deepens suspicion. The true lessons of the Gulf war are yet to be learned. While I happily supported the official Opposition policy throughout that war, we should not be blinded by events to the horrors of that campaign.
It is perhaps a surprise to realise that only 7·4 per cent. of the weapons used were precision weapons and that the great majority missed their targets. It took 27 attempts to hit each bridge in the Gulf war. The remainder were weapons of mass destruction.
The Bill is based on conventional weapons. Unfortunately, the division that we have understood to exist between conventional weapons and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is no longer clear-cut. The weapons that did maximum damage in the Gulf war had the effect of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They were the multiple-launch rocket systems, fuel air explosive weapons, cluster bombs and daisy cutters. Their effect was devastation over a huge area. On 30 January, 28 B52 bombers were in the air—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will the hon. Member refer me to the clause to which he is speaking?

Mr. Flynn: I am speaking to clause 2, Madam Deputy Speaker. This being a Second Reading debate, I was going somewhat wide of the clause.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Enormously wide. I hope that the hon. Member will address his remarks to the clause.

Mr. Flynn: The Bill is all about transparency. The Prime Minister said that the challenge inspections that will take place here are welcome. But they will produce some bizarre situations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, and he referred to the possibility of Mr. Gorbachev asking for inspection of GCHQ. Other such situations could arise. For example, a challenge inspection might be required of Aberporth, a rocket-firing station in west Wales. The Soviet Union could legitimately ask for such an inspection. The facilities there were used recently by General Pinochet, who is still head of the armed forces in his country. Presumably we would allow inspection to take place under clause 2.
But from the point of view of hon. Members, what happens at Aberporth is a secret. Indeed, I received a communication from the Defence Research Agency yesterday saying that it is secret. In other words, welcome agreements—attempts at transparency—are being made throughout Europe, but we in Parliament are not allowed to know matters that can be discovered easily by groups against whom we were ranged for the best part of half a century.
We advance with this important measure from arms control and disarmament, very much on lines agreed at the European summit in Luxembourg. I urge hon. Members not to study the conclusions of the presidency's consultative document, but to direct their attention to annex 7 which deals with the extreme dangers of the over-armament of the world. We may settle the position in Europe and the cold war will end—it is no longer the real

threat; the great threat is in the rest of the world, where arms bazaars are selling hideous weapons of mass destruction to any country that can afford to buy them. That will lead to the end of peace in many corners of the world and so threaten a world war. It will lead to instability in huge areas and to the impoverishment of many third-world countries.
The Bill is one building block in the construction of the new world order. We need many more.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall speak more briefly to this Bill than I did to the previous one, no doubt to the House's delight.
Arms control and disarmament have been off the agenda for far too long, so I welcome the Bill or any measures which put them back on the agenda. They have not been on the agenda because of the Soviet Union's continuing problems with its different populations and because of the involvement of the United States in the Gulf war, but they must again be brought to the forefront of world interests.
The Soviet Union and the western alliance—especially the United States and this country—are still going broke because of their overwhelming commitment to armaments. Of course, the Soviet Union is going broke more quickly, but that also has serious and unpredictable consequences for us. The military could easily take over if we do not reach the agreements outlined in the Bill.
The economies of the west are struggling with recession and debt because they have not agreed on the much-needed disarmament, and also because of their competition against those without such a heavy burden of commitments, especially Japan and Germany. There is an element of immortality involved, because we are wasting money on yet more weapons when that money should be used to deal with the dreadful problems of the third world.
That is a summary of what I want to say about the Bill, but I have some specific questions. The Bill enables inspections to be made in the United Kingdom under the conventional forces in Europe treaty, but that treaty has not yet been ratified by the United Kingdom. Why not? When will we ratify it, and what is the hold-up?
What about the short-range nuclear forces? When will negotiations begin on them? In 1989 NATO promised that they would start as soon as the CFE treaty had been concluded. Can we have some information about when negotiations will start?
When will the Government participate directly in more arms control measures? Only two weeks ago, in answer to a written question, the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom would not enter the strategic arms reduction talks until significant cuts had been made in United States and Soviet nuclear arsenals and only
if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities".—[Official Report, 27 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 512.]
Perhaps the Minister will explain what the Prime Minister meant. Was he alleging that the Soviet Union is breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty? If so, he should say that overtly instead of casting aspersions and dropping hints which merely damage the arms control process. He should produce evidence. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will in Committee.
In a written answer, a Foreign Office Minister said that Britain could not sign the anti-ballistic missile treaty


because it was a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. That is a pathetic argument, and for too long it has been used as an excuse for Britain not taking part. I am sure that, if the British Government were willing, the Soviet Union and the United States would be prepared to adapt the treaty to make it multilateral and to include a proper verification regime.
I wish to ask the Minister about a technical matter. What happens if wrong information is given to inspectors? Clause 3(1)(b) rightly makes it an offence wilfully to obstruct any member of the inspection team, but it should also be an offence wilfully to mislead or wilfully to attempt to provide false information to the team. The offence of wilfully misleading would, of course, extend to Governments.
What will the Government do to prevent people from misleading the inspection team? Are they prepared to make it an offence wilfully to mislead? Is the Minister confident that any attempt to mislead will be spotted by the inspectors? If so, he is admitting that inspections work and that we should have more of them and more arms control. If he says that inspections do not work, that emphasises the importance of making it an offence wilfully to mislead the inspection team.
Britain and 139 other states have signed the non-proliferation treaty. It should be given more importance. Although many countries do not have nuclear weapons, they are close to having that capability. What will the Minister do to strengthen the treaty? The British Trident system could be seen as violating it, because it offers evidence that Britain is not undertaking to pursue negotiations in good faith or effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, as the NPT demands. Trident is dangerously close to violating the NPT. If Britain is not doing its duty, that gives other nations an excuse not to abide by it.
There is a link between testing and the NPT. The final review conference is to take place in 1995, and there is a danger that it will founder if there is no significant ban on nuclear testing. The Government have set their sights firmly against that and have blocked it on every occasion. I hope that they will change their mind.
In 1987, France set up the missile technology control regime. What effort are the Government making to ensure that missile proliferation is controlled?
As for the strategic arms reduction talks—[Interruption.] These are the most important issues facing the world at present and they should be at the top of the agenda. They are worth airing so that we can try to make some progress in arms control and disarmament. The Guardian yesterday said that the four disputes holding up the START agreement were
an agreed procedure to inspect missile factories, ways to distinguish new and modified variants of strategic missiles from older models, a formula to reduce the number of warheads on missiles not being dismantled, and an agreed way to encrypt data from test missiles so that both sides can decode it.
Will the Minister throw some light on the extent to which those are holding up the START agreements? As the article said,
even after the treaty is complete, each side will be able to deploy 9,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which some analysts believe is more than either side had when the talks began.

It would be a disappointing outcome for a major treaty if both sides end up with more missiles than they had at the start of the negotiations.
The Government must put their will behind the Bill so that the conference on security and co-operation in Europe can tackle arms proliferation and the worldwide arms trade. We must have some answers from the Minister to show that the Government have the will to back proper measures for arms control and disarmament.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I welcome this important Bill, and I have listened carefully to the Minister's opening remarks. We are fortunate that Parliament has a number of hours in which to examine the issue at our leisure, rather than having the debate curtailed at tea-time to allow hon. Members to go home for a cup of tea and a slice of toast, as proposed in a subsequent motion.
In his opening motion, the Minister kept referring to the Warsaw pact countries, but the Warsaw pact has been disssolved.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said "former" Warsaw pact countries.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister now says "former Warsaw pact countries", but he did not say that during his speech. I point that out as an indication of the Minister's cold war thinking. I hope that the Bill is a new step toward better relations in Europe—by which I do not mean the Common Market but the whole continent of Europe, east and west. I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister will assure us that the Government are not wedded to the idea of the cold war but welcome its dissipation and that they want NATO to be wound up. The cause of tension between east and west could then be brought to an end.
The Bill deals with conventional weapons and is important because many nations in Europe are armed to the teeth and could inflict great damage with conventional weapons. It is also important that we should be able to control conventional weapons so that conflict can never take place, because conflict with conventional weapons is probably a prerequisite for the onslaught of a nuclear exchange, so the two are interlinked. NATO's flexible response policy can roughly be summed up by saying that if they come at us with tanks—it had the Soviet Union in mind—we shall reply with conventional weapons. If they come at us with nuclear weapons, or carry on with conventional weapons and we cannot beat them, we reserve the right to blow up the world by using nuclear weapons. Therefore, the two are closely linked.
I hope that the Government carry out the terms of the legislation, because I am concerned that a number of nations are looking at the Government extremely cynically. They say that, although the Government have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they are not honouring it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, clause 6 commits us to getting rid of nuclear weapons, but we have not done so since the formation of the treaty. The vast majority that signed that treaty are non-nuclear nations, and have told nuclear nations at several review conferences that they are committed not to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons. However, the nuclear powers continue to increase the numbers of their nuclear weapons. Exceptions to that are


the United States and the Soviet Union, which, through the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, are also nuclear power signatories.
The important nuclear power signatory to the non-proliferation treaty is the United Kingdom. The adoption of Trident nuclear weapons is in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. All the non-nuclear signatories to that treaty have said that they are concerned. A joint statement was not possible at the last review conference because of disagreements over the position of the nuclear signatories to the treaty.
Some of the non-nuclear nations may look at this important legislation, based on the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, and ask whether the United Kingdom seriously commits itself to a permanent reduction in armed forces and whether it will honour the treaty that it signed, in view of the Government's failure to honour the non-proliferation treaty.
That is not the Government's view. For some extraordinary reason, they believe that getting more nuclear weapons that are more powerful than this country has ever had—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, as I am, that the Bill deals with conventional weapons. I am sure that he is coming to that point.

Mr. Cryer: At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that there is no question in most strategists' minds but that a nuclear conflict will begin with an exchange of conventional weapons. The point that I am making is that, when nations enter into treaties, their conduct in carrying out those obligations qualifies the attitude of nations towards the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, which the Bill is designed to implement.
Through their handling of the passage of the legislation, and by honouring that important treaty, I want the Government to show that they will carry out its terms. Although I know that the Bill deals with only conventional weapons, there are too many of those and they should be reduced. It seeks to do so by providing the facilities to carry out that treaty, which is important. Failure to implement the United Nations non-proliferation treaty may reveal to other nations the serious nature of this Government's attitude towards the Bill.
Arms control and disarmament, and the inspection of those facilities, are important. We had a recent example in Iraq involving not conventional weapons, but nuclear materials. We are all concerned that no powers should develop nuclear weapons. Inspection is vital to ensure that nations do not exceed their agreed limits on arms of all types, and to see that they move towards reducing their numbers.
Although the treaty is not before us, the Minister said that it lists a certain number of weapons, and that a challenge inspection can be requested by another party to the treaty on sites where those weapons are kept. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked the Minister whether he would have to allow an inspection of GCHQ if requested to do so. The Minister shuffled his papers for rather a long time and then said that clause 2 states that the Secretary of State "may" issue an authorisation in respect of such an inspection. Does the treaty actually oblige the Secretary of State to issue an

authorisation? In relation to the treaty, does "may" really mean that it is expected and understood that such authorisation will be given?
I am sure that the Minister would not refuse a challenge. The Government want to co-operate with the terms of the treaty to the best of their ability—which brings me to Menwith Hill. It is a communications centre, with a direct link to British civilian communications at Waterstones Tower two or three miles away. About 800 people work at Menwith Hill, even though the site has never been authorised by Parliament—I wish that it had been. The site has been associated with information about the sort of conventional weapons that the Minister says are linked with the legislation through the treaty.
I have no doubt that information about the movement of troops and weaponry and about the storage and disposition of tanks will be recorded—amidst all the other chatter of communications—and analysed at Menwith Hill, where a great many Americans from the National Security Council are employed without the approval of Parliament. In any event, will it be open to a challenging party to demand to see Menwith Hill and what it does, so as to be satisfied that the communications system there is not being used to move various items subject to the treaty from one place to another?
Some signatories to the treaty may become suspicious. Many years ago, the Public Accounts Committee discovered that a base in Cyprus had seemed to have full petrol tanks only because the one that was inspected had been filled from several others, which had been drained. An ingenious system of piping devised by entrepreneurs in the armed forces that linked all the tanks ensured that only one of them needed to be kept full, so that the contents of the others could be sold off.
It is possible that a challenge inspector would say, "You claim that you have 50 tanks at Aldershot barracks, but we believe that the communications system could be used to move some of them for the purposes of an inspection, because you"—that is, the British Government—"want to conceal an increase in your conventional weapons." We might hold the same suspicion about another Government, but we would have the right to issue a similar challenge. There must be some reciprocity.
Will it be within the purview of the challenging parties to enter a secret, hidden base, not authorised by the House—such as that at Menwith hill? If so, I welcome the Bill. The sooner we rid ourselves of the cloak of secrecy that surrounds some aspects of our armed forces—such as the operation at Menwith hill and GCHQ, which is linked to it—the better we will be able to look Iraq, Iran, or any other country in the face and say, "We behave with absolute honesty. We expect you to do likewise. If there has been any chicanery or covering up of information, we expect you to reveal it, because we do likewise under the treaties that we sign."
No lower standard of honesty should be expected, but it is a matter of concern to me, and to many others, that the Government's standards are not—alack, alas—of the highest.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Bill has been welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, understandably, because the issue is one of great concern. The debate has at times ranged wide of the Bill, but I hope that my general


comments will touch on most of the matters that hon. Members have raised. If I fail to give a satisfactory response in all cases, I will write to the hon. Members concerned with further clarification and details.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised a number of questions that went wide of the debate. I will deal first with international considerations, and then with arms limitation in the European context. We welcome the prospect of a START agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Work is continuing in the alliance to prepare for short-range nuclear forces negotiations.
I remind the House of the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on which work continues, for a United Nations arms register. Conventional weapons transfers are a priority and must be carefully considered. We hope for early progress also towards a chemical weapons convention. Discussions among our allies continue, and in those we share the conviction that such a convention must include an effective verification regime.
Within Europe, we are pressing on with conventional arms control. Reference was made to the CFE follow-on negotiations in Vienna, specifically in connection with military manpower in Europe, in which agreement will be reached on national, not bloc-to-bloc limits, as was the case with the CFE treaty. The NATO is preparing a position for consultation among 35 CSCE countries this autumn in Vienna, to prepare for the new process of dialogue and negotiation to begin in mid-1992.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) mentioned open skies, and NATO recently made proposals for the relaunch of this. We await the Soviet response. It is obviously immensely important in the context of the equipment that was withdrawn east of the Urals. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of inspection in arms control verifications.
Hon. Members, and in particular the hon. Member for Swansea, East, have asked about compensation. We have to put this point in context. We already have inspections in the public sector interest, for example, for safety at work and for public health. Inevitably, in a complex world, such public inspections are increasing. No compensation is paid for such inspections and a provision for compensation in this process would set an unfortunate precedent. We do not expect that the burden of the inspection regime to be particularly great. Under the rather complex provisions by which we calculate the number of challenges and inspections that can take place, we anticipate that there will be about 10 challenge inspections in the United Kingdom and our European territories each year, and that each one should be no more than 48 hours long.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked about requests for inspections. The treaty makes provision for us to protect information in the interests of national security. That also answers a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The inspection will be of bulky equipment—tanks, armoured carriers, artillery, combat aircraft and helicopters. We are entitled to shroud that equipment so as to deny access to certain sensitive points. The only question that is pursued is the existence of equipment, not the detailed nature of it, which can be disguised by shrouding. It will be up to companies to make adequate arrangements to protect commercially

sensitive information. It is important to keep in mind that the verification regime is concerned only about the presence of equipment of the types limited by the treaty.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised another point. As I said, the CFE treaty is about equipment of certain types, and all the information that has been given to other parties has been made available to the House.
I sense that the wish of the House is to move on to other matters, so I invite hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2

RIGHTS OF ENTRY ETC. FOR PURPOSES OF CHALLENGE INSPECTIONS UNDER THE PROTOCOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I was not clear about the Minister's response on Second Reading. He said that there were reserve powers on the treaty, that areas essential for national security were excluded, and that equipment might be "shrouded", whatever that means. Presumably it means putting a camouflage sheet over a new and secret tank so that inspectors cannot see it. It all sounds terribly childish. The military's childish obsession has cost this country dear in money and human life and limb.
Clause 2(1) states:
The Secretary of State may issue an authorisation
For "may", should we read "shall"—or does it mean that there is discretion to refuse a challenge inspection? Clause 2(1) also states that the inspection may be made
within any specified area in the United Kingdom",
albeit the inspection is made under the protocol.
I hope that, in relation to the important issue of arms control and verification, the legislation will illuminate for other countries any shadowy areas. An important element of such legislation is the building of confidence between nations. People arm themselves when they are suspicious and suspect that other nations may not behave well towards them. The eradication of suspicion is another step towards reducing the amount of arms that people claim, often falsely, that they need for their nation's defence. Will the Minister elaborate on the definition and application of clause 2(1)?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further information. I am happy to underline the principal point that, in the national interest, the Bill allows us to deny access to sensitive areas. I am not able at this time to say precisely in what circumstances the Secretary of State and other senior members of the Government would seek to exercise that discretion. Clearly, it would be exercised in a matter of great national importance. As I have said, I cannot go into details at this time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

OFFENCES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I want the Minister to agree to write to me about offences. I said on Second Reading that there should be an offence of wilfully misleading the inspectorate and asked why it had not been included in the Bill. The clause provides only that someone who
wilfully obstructs any member of the inspection team … shall be guilty of an offence.
The issue that I raised on Second Reading is worthy of consideration, and the Minister did not respond to it. I do not ask him to do so now, but I hope that he will give some thought to the matter and will write to me.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Cryer: We should not allow the Under-Secretary's unsatisfactory responses to go by without comment. The hon. Gentleman employed the formula that Ministers usually adopt when they do not want to answer a plain, straightforward question. In the context of national security, they say that what can and cannot be inspected cannot be defined. However, the Government will be asked about inspections by other members of the treaty and they will have to respond. After all, the Government will be bound to be open. We are discussing future legislation that arises from a treaty that has been signed by the Government and that will provide access to inspect and verify arrangements for the mutual inspection of arms. The mumbo-jumbo that the Minister produced about the national interest not allowing any definition of what can be excluded, for example, is not acceptable, given the changes that have taken place throughout Europe.
At an earlier stage, hon. Members spoke of the cold war and the threat from the Soviet Union. None of us believed in that threat for very long and it has now been proved that it was a hollow one. It was—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may chortle, but the threat has been proved to have been hollow. Many of us, since elected to this place, have been saying that the threat from the Soviet Union was an illusion that was developed by the Conservatives and the military to justify wanton, wasteful expenditure year after year when we should have been spending the money on hospitals, schools and infrastructure. The moneys should not have been wasted on things that we could never have used. Yet it seems that the old hollow attitude is still prevalent.
The Soviet Union is no longer an enemy. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went to the Soviet Union and said that its leader was a bold, courageous man. She did not stay in office long enough to make further visits to Moscow to sustain the friendship that she developed and, in any event, it was not necessary to do so. After all, we are friends with the Soviet Union now.

Indeed, all the eastern bloc countries have changed. We do not need to indulge in the constant repetition of cold-war language or to argue that we must retain our enormous secrets because any indication of their nature to an elected body, such as the House, would prejudice the safety of the United Kingdom. It was not true then and it is not true now.
I hope that the Minister's comments do not show a lacklustre attitude on the part of the Government in he implementation of the treaty, because any treaty that is a step towards reducing our commitment to arms expenditure, towards building up confidence and towards providing verification that we are carrying out our part of the treaty is a step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting the treaty tonight.

Mr. George: I shall not follow the line of argument pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
For many years, people in the Labour party and outside, some more than others, argued vociferously that NATO's figures showing the enormous disparity of conventional forces between NATO and the Warsaw pact were a fiction. I remember the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament producing a document that it subsequently denied it had sent out, arguing that the concept of the Speznatz was a figment of some militarists' imagination. But when the CFE negotiations began, the Soviets honestly put on the table exactly what they had. They admitted that they had lied and, if anything, the discrepancy had been understated.
It is possible to argue that people on both sides played up the cold war for their own advantage and, bearing in mind the evidence available, most people would argue that, looking back for a period, there was a considerable threat. The cold war did exist and it was not exclusively the responsibility of a handful of warmongers on either side. But I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the situation changed radically. One should put the past in perspective while remembering the agonies that both sets of alliances went through.
If one had to describe the events of the last hour and a half or so the word farce would be inappropriate. The proceedings have been more than farcical. This is a critical Bill, yet party managers on both sides of the House have, for one reason or another, been determined to rattle through this important measure in a short time, late at night, putting pressure on those who wished to speak to be brief—not observed by all, myself included. That shows the House in a bad light.
When it comes to controlling the Executive in defence and foreign affairs, we are probably slightly in advance of the Supreme Soviet before the Gorbachev reforms. Events such as this vindicate the view that we are permanently bypassed. The only defence for such an approach would be if it could be argued that because of the need to implement the CFE treaty the legislation had only a narrow time slot.
Legislation going to the Lords is often perceived as being less important. The House rarely gets it teeth into legislation relating to treaties, arms control, defence—anything that is serious. One can do nothing about this now, but I register the strongest possible protest to the


party managers and to my colleagues in the House that we have allowed something as important as this to be dealt with in such a cursory and contemptible manner.
Those who spoke are part of that process. I spoke for 10 minutes, which in itself was a mistake in the light of subsequent speeches. A matter such as this should have been dealt with in great detail, even if it required one, two or three sessions. It is insulting to the House that we cannot raise enough knowledge or enthusiasm to speak in detail about specifics. The Bill is not about START, chemical arms control, open skies or anything mentioned by hon. Members; it is a specific piece of legislation. We did not do it justice. Although that may be partly the fault of Back Benchers, I feel that the bulk of the blame lies with those who decided to rattle through it so quickly. I very much hope that, if we deal with similar legislation in the future, Government and Opposition will decide to give us a little more time, at an earlier hour.
In a couple of weeks, I shall attend a conference of the North Atlantic Assembly. We parliamentarians—well versed in parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, and in parliamentary control of Governments dealing with defence and foreign affairs—will lecture the newly emerging democracies of eastern Europe on how to control the executive. All that I can tell them is, "Please do not follow our example." In their few months' experience of democracy, those countries have probably established more control over their executives than we have established over ours after 700 years of trying.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: First let me tell the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that the Bill was debated in another place, given a Second Reading and passed to this House. It was considered non-controversial in the other place, and came to this House—and to tonight's debate without a single amendment attached to it. That is why the Committee stage was taken so quickly.
We have not "rattled through" the Bill; this has been an open-ended debate. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to debate the Bill in more depth, he and his hon. Friends could have table amendments that could have been discussed in detail. They did not do so. That cannot be the fault of the Government, the business managers or the system that the hon. Gentleman has disparaged; it is the fault of those who scrutinised the Bill. If the people who scrutinised such Bills want to debate them, they can do so. I say that with the greatest respeect, recognising the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the subject. I think that he will agree, however, that the Bill—although it touches on the wider arms control debate—is a specific provision within that context, and that the Government are therefore not to be blamed for dealing with Second Reading in rather narrow terms.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to clause 2. The clause is drafted to reflect the challenge regime, as referred to in the CFE treaty. Where the word "may" applies, rather than the word "shall", it also applies to all the signatories of that treaty—and, presumably, to any legislaton that the Soviet Union may have to implement to give effect to the treaty.
The wording allows an inspected state party to refuse a challenge inspection. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that any Back Bencher in the Soviet Parliament whom he might contact would not find it easy to challenge his Government to give a definition of what the national interest constitutes. It is simply not possible to do that and to receive a sensible, coherent and comprehensive reply.
What I can say is that in practice we would expect to refuse only very rarely, and then only for overriding reasons of national security. It must be important, however, that the right that the treaty confers on all state parties—without which it would not have been completed and signed, and which is not restricted—be retained in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Sittings of the House (Select Committee)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of business, the hours of sitting, and the arrangement of the Parliamentary year; and to make recommendations thereon:
That five be the quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
That the Committee have leave to confer and meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on procedure of that House for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses on any aspects of the Committee's order of reference which affect that House as well:
That Hilary Armstrong, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alistair Burt, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. David Harris, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Stern be members of the Committee:
That the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1986–87, in the last Parliament, relating to the use of time on the Floor of the House, be referred to the Committee: and
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the Parliament.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before we proceed, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected an amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which seeks to leave out
to adjourn from place to place".

Mr. MacGregor: Some may regard it as somewhat ironic that a motion to set up a Select Committee on the sittings of the House and its hours should begin at this hour of the early morning. Therefore, I shall be brief. If the House approves the motion we will set up a Select Committee which will make recommendations to the House and to which all hon. Members may give evidence. Much of what we will be discussing can be dealt with on many occasions from now on.
When I announced my proposal for the review we had detailed exchanges in the House. I believe that it would be right to say that that proposal commanded widespread welcome on both sides of the House. In my statement of 27 June I made it clear that I believe that, following the consultations I have had with many hon. Members since I became Leader of the House, we need a wide-ranging and in-depth study of the way in which we organise our business.
The House will note that this is a House matter, not a party one. It is important and symbolic that the motion for approval tonight stands in the names of the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as well as mine.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is some regret that the names

set down for membership of the Select Committee do not include any hon. Members from Northern Ireland? We all recognise that Northern Ireland has not been given proper attention in the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the difficulty is that there are many in the House with varying points of view who would have wished to be on the Select Committee. I am sure that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Berwick-upon-Tweed have, in common with me, been informed by a number of hon. Members that they would have wished to serve on that Committee. A number have also made that clear tonight. It is difficult to achieve the right balance. It is relevant, however, that all hon. Members will be able to give evidence to the Select Committee and express their views on its recommendations.
It is clear that a number of hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not give way again, but will rather respond at the end of the debate to the points made.
This is not just about the hours that we sit. I hope that the Select Committee will consider the whole way in which we organise the handling of public and private business. In my earlier statement I suggested some of the issues that the Committee could examine. They include the increased quantity and complexity of Government and European business; the increased role of the Select Committees and the new system of scrutiny of European Community legislation. I believe that those European Standing Committees have demonstrated a better scrutiny of European proposed legislation and have helped with the hours of the House. I accept, however, that those Committees will be subject to review.
The Select Committee will also consider the widely differing views of hon. Members. It is also important to stress the input of the Select Committee on Procedure—four members of that Committee are on the new Select Committee. Its report on the use of time on the Floor of the House is referred to specifically in the order of reference for the new Select Committee contained in the motion.
As a result of a number of discussions that I have had with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that the Select Committee should be able to include within its terms of reference the experience of overseas legislatures that follow the Westminster model. It is for the Committee to decide what to do, but several colleagues have impressed upon me the importance of including that overseas experience. That is why I made provision for it in the terms of reference. It is for the House to decide on the amendment tabled by the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I believe that it would be a pity if we excluded the experience of other legislatures from the Committee's considerations.
I emphasise that the new Select Committee and the Procedure Select Committee have complementary tasks. The Procedure Select Committee will continue its valuable work on detailed aspects of our procedures under the valuable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The new Select Committee must examine private and public business and bring the wealth of its membership's experience and views to bear. I hope that the House will agree that its proposed Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), is one of our most experienced Members, who has long experience of all aspects of the


House. It is important that the Chairman has detailed knowledge of the workings of the House. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to be its chairman and I hope that the House will endorse that.
I believe that the membership of the Committee achieves a balance between hon. Members who have been here a long time and those who have been here for a short time, between male and female Members and between Members from a wide geographical spread of constituencies. That balance is important.
Potentially, the far-reaching nature of the matters that the new Committee can examine is empahsised by the motion's reference to the arrangement of the parliamentary year. The House may welcome a brief explanation of the reference to joint discussion with a Committee of the other place. The simple point is that changes to the parliamentary year, as distinct from all the other matters that the Select Committee will consider, affect both Houses. The new Committee may wish to deliberate with the Procedure Committee of the other place. If the new Select Committee were to make recommendations on the parliamentary year, the Government would have to discuss them fully with the other place. That is why it is important to have that in the terms of reference.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Leader of the House note that many past recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure are relevant to this and should be considered, including the one for a parliamentary calendar based on Canadian experience? Is it not extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman is still unable to tell us whether the House will rise next week, the week after or the week after that?

Mr. MacGregor: One of my difficulties in making that announcement is that we have much business to complete. I am anxious to ensure that we should not be going through the night every night. I hope that I shall be able to deal with that in business questions on Thursday.
The hon. Gentleman's points are relevant to the motion and relate to the experience of overseas legislatures and to considering changes to the parliamentary year. I agree with him on both points, and I hope that he will agree that the terms of reference cover them. As the motion appears in his name as well, I am sure that he will do so.
Some of the discussions that have been held on the review show that it is important to address the imbalance between men and women in the House. I have made it clear many times that I wish to see many more women Members of Parliament, but I do not think that that is the prime purpose of the Committee. The hours that we work and the way in which we do so are not the main reasons that deter women from standing. They are of equal concern to mere male Members of the House, so I do not regard that as one of the Committee's primary purposes.
I had a meeting this morning with many female prospective parliamentary candidates, who told me that, if constant emphasis is placed on encouraging women Members, it might have the counter-productive effect of encouraging selection committees to think that women experience difficulty in serving in Parliament. That is an important point, but I want to play it down and to make it clear that, although it may help, depending on the

recommendations of the Select Committee, more women to serve in the House, it is by no means the primary purpose of the Committee.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend knows that I was at the discussion this morning. I support him in the point he is making. Does he agree that the hours and conditions in this place put off many good people, men and women, particularly from outside London and the home counties?

Mr. MacGregor: So it is said, and that is for the Select Committee to consider. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue does not relate to one sex; it is equal for men and women.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many candidates, men and women, would sign up to work any hours if they thought that would get them elected?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to be diverted from the main issue, although my hon. Friend has a point. Another crucial point is that a number of factors other than the hours we work must be taken into account by anyone wishing to serve here and in the issues involved in the selection of particular people.
The real pressure for this review—the last six months have convinced me that many Members wish the review to take place—is concern, and to an extent, irritation at the frustrations and inefficiencies of the way in which we conduct business. That is the primary issue that the Select Committee must consider. I repeat—it is an important point—that the Select Committee will be able to take evidence widely, including from all Members who wish to give evidence.
The Ibbs reforms of the management of Parliament are an important step in getting the House modernised for the 21st century. A thorough, wide-ranging study of our procedures and the way in which we work is another important aspect of the story. We owe it to ourselves to undertake a wide-ranging review, and that is why I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need to establish a Select Committee to consider the hours of sitting of the House that our presence here now and the fact that we shall be debating until 2 o'clock the setting up of such a Committee.
Earlier, we debated for two hours an important piece of legislation, the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill. The debate began at 10.35 pm and finished at 12.35 am, on a procedure that would have been totally unintelligible to anyone outside the House. We debated the measure in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading, with the Minister expressing surprise that there had not been more discussion of the Bill. There might have been more discussion had the debate commenced at a more sensible hour. I have no doubt that a good case exists for examining the hours we sit and the way in which we conduct our affairs.
There is a predictable routine for those who arrive here as new Members. Indeed, at the beginning they express incredulity, as do many of our constituents, when they realise that we debate issues in the middle of the night—it


is now 12.37—while the nation sleeps. We could easily have had this discussion yesterday morning. New Members go through a period of incredulity. They then get used to the routine, after which they either adjust their lives to the peculiar lifestyle that we must adopt to fall in line with the sittings of the House or they find themselves impotent and frustrated at their inability to achieve change.
The time is ripe for the Select Committee to be appointed and for some changes to be achieved, if only because a large number of Members have recently been elected. There were 156 new Members in 1983 and 128 in 1987 so that, with the addition of by-elections since 1987, over 300 Members—nearly half the House—have been here for fewer than eight years. As the Select Committee may well extend into the next Parliament, and as there will be substantial changes in the membership of the House due to involuntary retirements from the Government Benches after the next general election, there will be a large number of new Members.
The time is ripe for change. Some people say that this place cannot be changed, but I draw the House's attention to the achievements of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. I do so with some pleasure, as I served on that Committee. Four years ago there was massive hostility in the House to the idea of cameras being introduced. That hostility was shared by a great majority of members of the Cabinet and by the then Prime Minister. Now there are eight cameras pointing at us—one assumes that the camera operators are still awake—

Mr. John Greenway: They are switched off.

Mr. Grocott: I expect that they are switched off. There are cameras and lights, but the heavens have not fallen in. The operation is perfectly satisfactory and is now an unremarkable part of our democratic life. To those who say that this place cannot be changed, I say that the Select Committee proved that it is possible to change it and to do so effectively.
I hope that the Committee that we propose to set up will be bold and will have the nerve to make radical proposals. There are four elements—

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Committee to consider the fact that, at the Council of Ministers in Europe—where the real decisions are taken—work begins at 10 am? I have stood next to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at about this time the following morning when he collapsed from overwork, but we were still at it at 4 am the following morning. Real decisions take a long time and discussions cannot be truncated for the benefit of hon. Members with London constituencies who want to nip off home.

Mr. Grocott: I shall gladly deal with the problem of hon. Members from London—an issue about which my feelings are not that dissimilar from those of the hon. Gentleman. However, if he thinks that the Council of Ministers in Brussels is a good model for decision making, his priorities are very different from mine.

Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has no experience of it.

Mr. Grocott: We shall not discuss the Council of Ministers. Some of us have seen how ludicrously it

operates, including John Silkin when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Labour Government.
There are four questions on which I hope that the Committee will concentrate. The first concerns late sittings which do us no credit and are not conducive to good decision making.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend mentions late sittings and cites this debate. Is he aware that the only reason that we are holding this important and interesting Second Reading debate now is because Conservative Members voted for it and we did not? The usual rules of the House provide that the business draws to a close at 10 pm, following which is a half-hour Adjournment debate. Under instructions from the Whips, Conservative Members voted for an extension of the hours and they can do so whatever the Select Committee recommends.

Mr. Grocott: No one doubts the Government's capacity to control the way in which the House operates. It has ever been thus, but that capacity has been abused by this Government, especially in the past few weeks.
In addition to the question of late sittings, the new Committee should consider the proportion of time spent on the Floor of the House. Many of our constituents have commented on the fact—we have had to make excuses about it since the arrival of the cameras—that there are many occasions when only three or four hon. Members are in the House, yet the whole paraphernalia of the Chamber is required to be kept going. Throughout my political life, I have always adopted the principle that, if I am to address a small meeting, which is frequently the case, I use a small room because it looks much better. It can be argued that many of our proceedings could be dealt with in Committee or in a smaller room than this, and I hope that the Select Committee will consider that.
I hope that the Select Committee will do something about the unpredictability of parliamentary life. We all accept that emergencies may arise and that there are times when a parliamentarian's life must be unpredictable, but it is ridiculous that; as a matter of course, it is not until Thursday that we can make firm commitments in our diaries for the following week. I can think of no good reason for that;, nor can my constituents or those of other hon. Members. It is impossible for us to say whether we are available to attend meetings, because until Thursday we do not know what we will be doing. In most cases, the business could be planned much more in advance.
I wish to come to what most hon. Members regard as the most divisive matter for the Select Committee. I have strong views on it, and it relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). It would be fatuous to deny that there are fundamental differences of view and of interest between those who, like me, live and work away from London and those who live and work in it. Often, it is said that this building has all the characteristics of a club. I would add another description—it has all the characteristics of a London club, in the interests of those who live and work in London. I mean not just Members, but journalists, reasearchers and all the essential support that any Parliament requires. Everything is oriented towards London. That is one of the bad aspects of administration in this country. There would be greater benefits if there were less emphasis on London.
The only way to enable hon. Members who do not live in London to conduct their affairs more effectively would be to consider the way in which sittings are spread through the week and, particularly, the problem of Friday sittings. I can see no good reason why the hours spent on Friday sittings could not be spent on other weekday mornings.
Journalists from some newspapers will accuse us of wanting a four-day week, but we all know that, for the vast majority of us, Fridays are constituency days. They offer the only opportunity, outside the recesses, for us to do constituency work and to organise school, factory, office and similar visits. It is a grave embarrassment to all of us when we receive letters on crucial matters involving private legislation which say, "At all costs attend the House of Commons," which means cancelling a raft of constituency engagements. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot either move Friday's work to some time during the rest of the week or arrange that the material considered on a Friday is not subject to a vote.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman touched on a point that is dear to the hearts of those of us who do not represent London constituencies. Does not that matter extend beyond the weekly management of business in the House into the parliamentary year? Other legislatures organise their business in such a way that Members can be in their constituencies for a substantial part of each month. It is clear when Members of the European Parliament can go back to their area, organise their routine to meet their constituents and carry out their business. Surely we must organise our business so that it is divided into appropriate sections of each month.

Mr. Grocott: I do not entirely agree with the type of division that the hon. Lady suggests, but I agree that anything that brings more predictability to our parliamentary year and life is to be recommended.
I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. In many respects we could be accused of putting the cart before the horse, because I can think of no other operation where there would be an investigation into the hours worked before there was a prior investigation into what the organisation was intended to achieve. As well as examining how many hours we should spend performing our functions, we should ask ourselves what our functions are, whether we are performing them effectively, and how effective Parliament is at key functions such as scrutinising the Executive.
Conservative Members will consider this as a deeply partisan point. Perhaps it is, but it is valid. A legislature that was supposed to scrutinise the Executive none the less passed the poll tax Bill, which was manifestly bad, unworkable legislation on any reckoning. It is now recognised as such even by Conservative Members. Could not Parliament have a different system? Obviously, we can never defeat a parliamentary majority and I should never want that, but I wonder whether our procedures guarantee that legislation is properly scrutinised. Is there enough investigation and calling of witnesses to prevent such a fiasco from ever recurring?
The same questions could be asked about our skills to deal with our constituents' grievances—another fundamental characteristic and function of Parliament. It is not so much a question of examining the hours that we

work as of examining our functions and how effectively we perform them. One of the lessons I learned on the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House—many Committee Members did not like learning it—was that the more we asked what the public should see of what we do, the more we were forced to ask how effective we were at doing what we say we do, how good we were at the job and what was the job that we were supposed to do. I am afraid that the answers were often embarrassing, because all too often we are not very good at what we are supposed to do.
If the House of Commons is to retain a central role in democracy, as I am sure most hon. Members want it to, and if our democracy is to be admired throughout the world, we must be prepared to change and admit when we are not doing our job properly. Although I am sure that I shall not agree with all the Select Committee's recommendations, especially if it fails to address the fundamental problem of hon. Members who live and work away from London, I welcome the fact that it is being set up, and I hope that it is a success.

Sir Peter Emery: At this hour, I shall be brief. I wish to make just three points. First, it is important for people to realise that this Select Committee differs from the ordinary Select Committee on Procedure because it will consider public and private business. We are discussing this matter at this hour today because private business intervened for three hours at 7 o'clock. I wonder whether that was the right way to proceed, with one hon. Member speaking for over an hour. I make no condemnation, but the matter needs to be considered. It is no use our considering the sittings of the House unless we can consider public and private business together.
Secondly, hon. Members' views fall into two definite categories: those who have homes in or around London and are happy to keep business hours, and those who travel long distances to come to the House and would rather sit for long hours three days a week and then not have to be here on Mondays or Fridays. I do not know how we should deal with those conflicting views, but the Committee will have to consider them fully.
The media and hon. Members should not believe that such matters have not been churned over time and time again for many years recently. The concept that we shall arrive at an easy, slick solution that will revolutionise everything is the stuff of "Alice in Wonderland". I am worried that we shall sit for a long time and that the only thing to emerge will be a mouse. Let us heed that warning now, rather than have people going away and expecting the Committee to produce a marvellous answer to everything.
I do not see much point in going around the world. As Select Committee Members can tell us, there are very few legislatures with similarities to ours. Most of the evidence should be taken in writing and presented to the Committee, which should make some sensible recommendations, concerned with the proper working of Parliament, not trying to make the Parliament into something like that in Europe, something like that in Germany and something like that in Switzerland. Those Parliaments are not similar to ours, and we should never believe that they are.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I tabled a number of amendments to the motion in the hope that we would have more than an hour and a half to deal with an important Select Committee. The Leader of the House had the cheek to say that he would be brief because many hon. Members wanted to speak—it was he who tabled the motion to limit the debate to one and a half hours. He arranged it so that when we have an hour or so in which to debate the subject yesterday, the motion on the Order Paper was withdrawn.
I tabled a number of amendments because I was not satisfied with the cut-and-dried way in which the matter had been agreed by the coalition of all the parties. When the Leader of the House announced the Select Committee, he announced its chairman. He had no right to do that, but did so because he had reached agreement with everybody and thought he could bypass the procedures and appoint the chairman. But that is a matter for the Committee.
That is why I tabled an amendment suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should be a member. That amendment was not selected, for which I am grateful because my hon. Friend has said that he is not willing to serve on the Committee, and I respect his reservations.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I was interested to see that amendment and when I thought about it during the day I was tempted to vote for it.

Mr. Cryer: I was concerned that the decision about such a matter should be left to the Select Committee members and should not be pre-empted in any way. That is why I suggested my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford, who I believe would have made an excellent Committee member. I am sorry that he decided not to offer his good services, but that is entirely within his jurisdiction.
My amendment suggested that we delete the words:
to adjourn from place to place
will, I hope, concentrate our minds. There are enough Select Committees travelling the world from this place at a cost of about £500,000 a year for this Committee to be excluded from that privilege. If the Committee is excluded, I hope that it will concentrate the minds of its members and produce an earlier report. If its members feel that they want a taste of travel, they can ask hon. Members who have visited other countries to come to the Committee to give evidence. They will have a wide choice of candidates.
On Tuesday 26 February, the Liaison Committee provided £35,000 for the Select Committee on Defence to go to Washington; £18,000 for the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts to go to Sweden and Germany; £9,363 for the Select Committee on the Environment to go to Germany; £8,900 for the Select Committee on European Legislation to go to The Hague and £11,900 for it to go to Strasbourg; £36,740 for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to go to the middle east; £5,655 for the Select Committee on Health to go to Brussels; £9,932 for the Select Committee on Home Affairs to go to France; £29,719 for the Select Committee on Transport to go to the United States and Canada; £29,920 for the Treasury and Civil Service Committee to go to the Soviet Union; and £24,885 for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to go to the United States—no doubt to see

whether Welsh culture is alive and flourishing there. Such travel is not necessary, and the Committee can well dispense with it.
The hours of other legislatures are known. A massive amount of information is available in the Library. A huge number of hon. Members have been to legislatures all over the world in countries whose climates are better than ours during the winter. They can give evidence to the Select Committee. I hope that we will hear no more nonsense about this travel benefiting the House. I do not often attend meetings of the Liaison Committee, of which I am a member, because they tend to involve long arguments about travel, but I feel that travel with Select Committees is a privilege given because the work of such Committees is an additional chore for Members.
If people claim that my opposition to the rush to curtail or change the hours of this place shows that I am hidebound, I must point out that I voted consistently for televising the House. But I believe that the hours that we have in which to deal with matters that come before the legislature of the United Kingdom are barely adequate. I should have chosen the amendment charging the Committee with considering the arrangements for scrutinising affirmative orders and orders subject to annulment—had I been given the choice.
We deal with them disgracefully. They need more hours of scrutiny, not fewer. Most of the legislation in this place is subordinate, not primary, legislation. I chair a Committee that examines only the technicalities, not the merits, of such measures. If anyone wants to know how difficult it is to table a prayer, he should try opposing a measure subject to the negative procedure. A prayer is allocated time for debate only if Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen table it and the Government agree to it. If the former table too many prayers, the Government will not give them all time.
These orders are not subject to amendment. They are taken complete, in one and a half hours, and it is a fallacy to assume that they can be dealt with in less time than they already are. That is why I have reservations about the rush to set up this Committee.
Against a large parliamentary majority, the Opposition have few weapons to hand. One of them is the power to delay legislation and possibly to build up opposition to it outside—not always successfully, as the poll tax showed—to stop the Government legislating at all. Without the time in which to do that, however, this place becomes a rubber stamp.
I should like to see more socialist women, and men, in this Parliament, but the notion that lots of wonderful people are queueing up to come here if only we altered the hours is wrong. There is already a queue. We all know that, if a Member starts looking ill, and has a good majority, others start discussing the precise size of that majority. A queue of people already wants to get in here, with or without lengthy hours.
The quality of hon. Members varies enormously; the quality of people outside does, too. We represent the strands of humanity among those who send us here, and long may we continue to do so.
I am mindful that the Select Committee has already been sealed and delivered by the Front-Bench representatives of the Opposition and the Government, with the specific purpose of changing the hours of the House. Many


more important matters deserve consideration, but I will listen to the debate before deciding whether or not to vote against the motion.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I commend the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in bringing forward the proposals contained in the substantive motion to establish the proposed Select Committee. He is turning into an absolutely blooming marvel, and he is likely to be thanked by future generations of Members of Parliament as one of the great reforming Leaders of the House. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not share my view, but it is worth expressing
I agree with my right hon. Friend that our sitting hours are not a factor in discouraging women from becoming Members of Parliament. However, the general working conditions here, and the general approach that is taken to the business of the House, appears to many outsiders as very old-fashioned, and discourage many good people—male and female—who could serve the House and the country well.
The existing set-up is quite bizarre, and inappropriate in the modern world. We are in danger of allowing ourselves to slide into eccentricity and incompetence. For example, we are only here six months a year—something on which the newspapers have commented a great deal recently—yet we remain debating in this Chamber past midnight. We expect Ministers to work 100 hours a week—week in, week out—and all of us are required to make important decisions, and to vote on them, in the small hours.
The House sits more days per annum than the legislatures of other large democracies. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is unnecessary to arrange visits to other Parliaments to establish that—it is a matter of record. Nevertheless, we still have trouble cramming in all the business that comes before us.
This House sits more hours, and later into the night, than the other place. No one needs to visit Australia—one only has to walk 200 yards up the Corridor to find out how the Upper House functions.

Dame Jill Knight: How did my hon. Friend reach the conclusion that this House sits only six months a year? That simply is not true.

Mrs. Currie: If my hon. Friend adds up the number of days that the House sits—that information appears in the Select Committee report that was recommended reading for this debate—she will find that they total 172 days a year. The fact remains that we are absent from the House for large chunks of the year—but when we are here, we often sit until well after 1 o'clock in the morning. That may make sense to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), but it does not make sense to me, and I am entitled to say so.
Apart from not having to consider the Finance Bill, the other place does exactly the same work that we do. All Bills are considered on the Floor of the Upper House. It has highly effective Select Committees. It still manages to finish in time for a respectable dinner. Most of their

Lordships are pensioners, yet they manage to organise their timetable a lot better than we do. In many respects, they also work more effectively.
I volunteered to serve on the Select Committee, and I will certainly submit evidence to it. I have a long list of suggestions—which grew longer during the two and a half hours taken by the previous debate. For example, the dates of sittings should be known in advance. Details of the business of this House are largely available in advance. Ministers, for example, know when their presence will be required over the next month or so.
The list of right hon. and hon. Members who are to speak in a debate should also be published in advance, as is done in another place. As that information is available in advance to the Chair and to the Whips, why is it kept secret and not published? If it were, we could avoid the immense waste of right hon. and hon. Members' time that occurs when they spend many hours hanging around, not knowing whether they will be called to speak. That may not be a problem for Privy Councillors, but it is for ordinary Members, who are in the majority.
Regular use should be made of timetable motions. I cannot imagine why they should be thought of as a problem. We should work more reasonable hours, and it would not be too difficult to work out how to do that. We can get rid of a great deal of business we do, which is not appropriate for a sovereign House, such as the private Bills on railways and docks, which I have mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We should abolish the money resolution and second Adjournment debates.

Mr. Cryer: Why?

Mrs. Currie: The great advantage of abolishing the money resolution debates is that it would cut the hon. Gentleman off in full flood, because he is the only hon. Member who speaks in them. The rest of the House would regard that as beneficial.
We have bitter arguments, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, about the sovereignty of the House, but a minority say that we cannot change the hours because we all have other work to do outside. We cannot have it both ways. Either this House is important or it is not. Either we play macho games at hours when everybody else is in bed, or we engage in the serious business of scrutiny, of criticism, of protest, of praise and of looking after our constituents. There is no longer any reason for our long sittings and our late hours, which make us less rather than more effective. I support the setting up of this Committee. I bid it not to be timid, and I hope that it will reach sensible and intelligent conclusions that will take the House into the next century.

Mr. James Wallace: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) say that we work for only six months of the year and proceed to justify that by talking about 172 days. That would mean that during the six months, the House would be having Saturday and Sunday sittings, no doubt at reasonable hours. That would be unacceptable to me and, I have no doubt, the overwhelming majority of other hon. Members.
Because of fog and other difficulties, I eventually got a plane from my constituency this afternoon, and I sat


beside a constituent who asked me what business I was coming back to. I told him that at about 11 o'clock, I expected to be called in the debate. Given that I have been called some two hours later, that was a triumph of hope over experience. The reaction that I got was no doubt one that other hon. Members have got from their constituents time and time again—disbelief that we might be talking about something important at this time of the morning.
In many walks of life, people have to work late hours and into the night, but people find it amazing that the House has institutionalised ridiculous times and that we start the formal business of the House when most people are well through their formal working day. Apart from anything else, we cannot make sensible or reasonable decisions late in the night.
I remember in the last Parliament the debates on a pilotage Bill. I tried to argue a serious point about the employment rights of pilots when the debate had been going on for some time. The debates on amendments to earlier clauses of the Bill were debated thoroughly, but by the time that we got to the later clauses, hon. Members were getting restless. They wanted to get home and the amendments, which were as important as those to the first part of the Bill, did not get the treatment and consideration that they could and should have been given if we had started at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Spearing: That was the fault of hon. Members.

Mr. Wallace: Of course it was, because hon. Members were rebelling over the ridiculous hours that we were sitting and could not give the Bill serious consideration at that time of night.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we come to Parliament to debate matters of difference, we have to sacrifice something—

Ms. Harriet Harman: We sacrifice women.

Mr. Spearing: No. We have to operate the least inconvenient system that we can devise, but we are all frail. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not blame the system when it is we who are imperfect.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is not disagreeing with me. Of course it was Members of Parliament who were saying, "Get on with it," at 10.45 or 11.15 pm. If we started earlier, such debates could take place at a much more reasonable hour when hon. Members would be better equipped to deal with important matters.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South has said that some hon. Members have outside interests. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but the sittings of the House should not be geared to suit people who spend time in the City or in the courts and then come here when it suits them. The hours of the House should not be set to suit such people. The House should work decent hours and people with outside interests should be prepared to agree to them.
We are told that Ministers would have difficulty in dealing with work in Departments, but there would be no need for Ministers to attend on mornings when the business of the House did not involve them. The issue of votes causes some concern. I was not here for the experiment in the late 1960s when the late Richard Crossman was Leader of the House. I have read that, at that time, morning votes were postponed and taken at

about 7 o'clock in the evening. That could be done again. Seven o'clock may seem like a long time after a morning debate, but the House could often vote before a debate, and it would not make much difference to the outcome. If the will is there, ways can be found to deal with the voting problem.
We are told that Committee work would intervene. I suspect that that majority of Standing Committees now sit in the afternoon. The Standing Committee on the Finance Bill sits only in the afternoon, and many Select Committees sit when debates are taking place in the House. The Committee argument has no validity.
To change the hours will require some discipline, because I suspect that, so long as there are hours to be filled, some hon. Members, and especially the Government, will find business. I do not accept that we should pack up at 5 o'clock for tea, as I think the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested in the previous debate. We could structure our day so that, with occasional exceptions, we could finish at 10.30 pm.

Mr. Cryer: In the previous debate, I suggested that that idea was in the mind of the hon. Members who proposed a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman suggests that I endorsed that. I am against it because, like other hon. Members, I think that the Select Committee will meet the needs of London Members and not those of provincial Members.

Mr. Wallace: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misinterpreting him. I think that he suggested that that was the motivation for the proposal for a Select Committee. What he suggests would not necessarily happen. We could change the hours of the House and operate more realistically.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) spoke about the difficulties faced by hon. Members who live outside London. I have a strong claim to speak about that, because I live further from London than any hon. Member. It is difficult to see people at their place of work, speak to local government officials or visit schools because such things can be done only on weekdays. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, we get many worthy representations and it is difficult to be in the House on Fridays for a vote on what is usually an important private Member's Bill. I hope that the Committee will address that problem, perhaps by looking at ways in which Friday work can be concluded in the morning.
Perhaps, in one week out of three or four, there could be no sitting on a Monday. The United States Senate has three weeks on and one week off. I hope that the Committee will examine those proposals with an open mind, and will reach a conclusion that will enable hon. Members to attend to constituency business at times when constituents can meet them.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does not follow that those of us who travel long distances to come to the House want to truncate the business into three days a week? Such truncation would lead us into the trap of rushing business and overloading each sitting day. It would be reasonable, however, to start business earlier in the day. On Monday, we could start at a time that would allow every hon. Member, from whatever part of the United Kingdom, to get to the House on time. On Thursday, it would be appropriate to adjourn at a time that would allow every


Member to be back at home by the end of the day. To truncate the business into a four-day week in that way would be a great improvement.

Mr. Wallace: I think that that is reasonable. I said that there could be occasions when it might be worth considering not sitting on a Friday or a Monday. We can never legislate for the weather, which might confine us to our constituencies.

Mr. Donald Thompson: There is a difference in ethos between the party that the hon. Gentleman represents and the rest of us. We represent our constituents in Westminster, while Liberal Democratic Members try to be Westminster representatives who are perpetually in their constituencies.

Mr. Wallace: That was a facile comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could have done better than that if he had tried. My colleagues and I try to represent our constituents effectively by talking to them to ascertain the issues that they wish us to raise in this place. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to confine his activities to the House and not to be available in his constituency when it is convenient for his constituents to talk to him, that is his lookout.
The parliamentary timetable was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The somewhat modest proposals that were set out in the first report of the Procedure Committee of 1986–87 are a good starting point. School holidays in Scotland inevitably arouse discussion at this time of year. Scottish Members find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that, by the time the House goes into the summer recess, the school holidays in Scotland have nearly come to an end. I hope that there will be greater sensitivity to that unfortunate fact.
We shall tackle these issues only if we consider what the House should not be doing, should be doing less of, or should be doing better. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) cited private business as a good, clear example. A strengthened European Parliament could remove some of the problems that sometimes confront the business of the House. Proper devolution to Parliaments in Scotland and Wales would certainly relieve the House of much of its business. I take the point about Northern Ireland and the composition of the Select Committee. Given the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted, even a Select Committee of Northern Ireland Members could not undertake proper examination of it.
I hope that the labours of the Procedure Committee will not, as the hon. Member for Honiton feared, produce a mouse. Perhaps it is asking too much to bring the procedures of this place into the 21st century, but with a bit of luck we might bring the House kicking and struggling into the 20th century.

Sir Hector Monro: I agree with much of what has been said tonight. I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to set up the proposed Select Committee. If it is established, it will have important repercussions.
I am worried, however, on two or three scores. We shall never improve our procedures unless the Government of

the day introduce less legislation than at present. It seems that it has been impossible to reduce the business, whatever Government have been in power, over the past 20 or 30 years.
Secondly, I am concerned about whether, at the end of the day, we shall have the will to accept what the Committee says. I was lucky enough to serve on the Procedure Committee under my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) which put forward many valuable recommendations to the House, the majority of which have just run into the sand, often defeated by the usual channels on both sides of the House just in case they lose out when they are next in Opposition. We must view the matter seriously. We must have the will to implement any constructive recommendations.
Thirdly, I am worried about the possibility of a world tour. If we are to get anywhere at all, for goodness sake let us get on with it and get something prepared for legislation, if that is what is required, in the autumn of 1992. If the Committee is to spend most of the year touring round looking at other Parliaments, its report will not be ready for a couple of years. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to deprecate unnecessary world tours.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that the end of the second Adjournment debate, which we discussed in the Procedure Committee, would allow the House occasionally to rise at 9 or 10 o'clock. At present, the Whips Offices on both sides of the House keep debates going just to ensure that we do not have a second Adjournment. That would be a simple step, and I do not know why it is turned down whenever it is put before the House.
I am concerned about morning sittings. They did not work at all well when we had the experiment in the 1960s. We must also bear in mind the fact that they would prevent any visits to the House by school parties and others who come regularly every working day.
The Procedure Committee's recommendation on timetabling Standing Committees was valuable. Hon. Members would have an idea when they were to speak, and they could have 10, 20 or 30 meetings, avoiding all the difficulties of dragging the business out to obtain a guillotine, which is another way of wasting everybody's time unnecessarily.
But the most important thing is to get on with this quickly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might recommend that the Committee should try to report in time for a debate next July so that we can introduce legislation the following winter to be part of the new procedure in the following year.
Not only is that what the Committee should do, but if we can do anything in the immediate future that is obvious to both Front Benches and acceptable to the House, let us do it because we are having an immense amount of late night sittings. I also agree about the negative procedure, which is quite unsatisfactory, as are many of the affirmative resolutions which we cannot amend.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give consideration to making immediate changes that are acceptable to both sides which would improve practical work week by week, and then set the Committee a timetable to try to report within 12 months from now, so that we might make progress the following winter.

Mr. William Ross: I have been through a number of debates such as this before in my 17 years in the House and the one thing that I have learnt during those years is that, the longer one is in the House, the more one comes to realise that our procedures are not quite as mad as some people would have us believe.
Not every hon. Member is here this evening. In fact, only a small minority of them are. Therefore, most people who wanted to be in bed two or three hours ago are probably already in it. I most certainly could have been in it had I so desired.
I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time; time is running short, and I know that a number of other hon. Members want to speak.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I hoped that he would tell us whether he was expressing his personal view or that of his party. I still do not know the answer, but perhaps we shall be told before the end of the debate. In any event, Northern Ireland Members know very well what it is like to sit late, as much of the Northern Ireland business is dealt with long after 10 pm. We are more than fed up with that. We should like to have prime time, but better this time than no time at all. I think that we should be given more time, however.

Mr. Wilson: As one who has listened sympathetically, late at night, to comments about the derisory time that is allowed for Northern Ireland business, I find the hon. Gentleman's attitude remarkable. What does he mean, "better at dead of night than not at all"? No one is suggesting "not at all". Surely, if the hours were brought forward to a reasonable extent, Northern Ireland business and all other business could be discussed, and nothing would be lost.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman, like many other hon. Members, appears to be very fortunate, given that his mornings are so free from the pressures of constituency correspondence and so forth that he is able to come and sit in the Chamber. Anyone who walks in during any debate will generally find far fewer hon. Members here than are present tonight. This is supposed to be a debating Chamber, to which people come to be convinced of an argument, but far too few come to listen to the views of the opposing side. If more did so, wiser decisions might be reached.
Hon. Members have said that we should try to conduct our affairs as effectively as possible. The motion uses the word "effectively", but not the word "fairly". That brings me back to the subject of Northern Ireland. I believe that the affairs of every part of the United Kingdom should be dealt with fairly. Paragraph 37 of the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, on page xii, refers to
a statement to the House on 12th June 1986 announcing the Government's intention to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly".
On 19 June, in the dissolution order,
Ministers reiterated the Prime Minister's offer of talks about arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster. In the light of that we do not intend to refer further at this stage to these arrangements. Nevertheless we make it clear that the present method of dealing with Northern Ireland business unavoidably encroaches en the time of the House.

Rev. Martin Smyth: And that was four years ago.

Mr. Ross: Five, actually.
I understand that another series of Select Committee proposals are floating around, but as yet they are neither printed nor available. It is suggested that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee has been recommended. Please could we have one? There is no good reason for further delay, in the 20th year of direct rule. It is time that Northern Ireland business was dealt with properly, and that the House, as a democratic institution, did its duty for the people who live there.

Mr Alex Salmond: It is not democratic.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I think that it is, in the sense that the majority in the House get what they want. I for one am prepared to live by majority rule, although I am expected to live by minority rule at home—and I do not like that very much.
The Select Committees do useful work, and the absence of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland is a glaring, scandalous deficit. Now is a good time for the Government to set one up. Every day, motion No. 48 appears on the Order Paper, pointing out how simple it would be to end that scandal. Is there any good reason why it should not be done immediately? The reality is that common justice demands the creation of such a Committee for Northern Ireland. I hope that that common justice is done for those whom I represent in the near future.
I should like to go on but, since so many other hon. Members want to contribute, I shall sit down and leave the Floor to them.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, I have listened to the debate carefully. There is considerable merit in many of the arguments advanced and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of them.
I want to raise an issue that has not been mentioned. I premise my remarks by saying that I am not speaking of my personal position. I believe that the Leader of the House and the Select Committee have a responsibility to every hon. Member and the staff who serve us so well to consider their health.
Each hon. Member sitting in the Chamber now is completing a 17-hour day. We are expected to be back here tomorrow morning to attend the Select Committee of which I am a member. In my short service to the House, I have seen many men and women of great stature and gift whose lives have been ruined by poor health brought about by their service to the House.
The only personal case to which I shall draw the attention of the House occurred in 1979 when a colleague and I sat in the House for 49 continuous hours. We were both Members from the provinces, and at the conclusion of that sitting we joined the same train to go back to our constituencies. That night my colleague committed suicide—I refer to Jocelyn Cadbury, who served the constituency of Birmingham, Northfield so well. I was close to him, and I believe that nothing but the strain of that long sitting of two days and two nights caused his suicide.
I believe that we have a responsibility to one another and a great responsibility to our constituents to ensure that our work in the House does not damage the health of hon. Members and the support service staff. When the Select


Committee meets, I hope that it will consider and safeguard the health of all hon. Members and staff of the House. In my judgment, it has a responsibility so to do.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the establishment of the Select Committee, but is absolutely ridiculous that we are discussing that Committee and its terms of reference at 1.30 in the morning when everyone else in their right mind is in bed.
We are not airline pilots going through time zones or people in the national health service—

Mr. Cryer: Nurses and transport workers work all hours.

Ms. Harman: I just said that we are not members of the health service who need to work on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day. We are not working in a steel mill or somewhere with a continuous flow of work. There is nothing inevitable about our having to work at this time. This practice is self-imposed or imposed by tradition. If we have the will and the sense, we can change it.
Many arguments in favour of change have already been made. There can be no doubt that the hours of the House are one of the reasons—not the only one—why there are so few women in the House. It is hard to combine motherhood with work in what is laughingly described as the mother of Parliaments. It is becoming more normal for people outside the House to combine having a young family with work. If employment patterns outside are changing to enable women to combine work with motherhood, is it not time that the House changed so that women can be not only Members of Parliament but mothers? How can we be taken seriously in employment debates on changing the pattern of employment, flexible hours, women returners and child care when the House cannot change itself to hear the voices of women?
On a range of issues—child care, the difficult balance between work and home and the difficulties of caring for the elderly—women have different experience from men. Although women's lives are changing, the lives of men and women are still very different. We need the experience of more women to shape our policy making.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I am sure that she does not wish to portray women as the weaker sex. If she subscribes to business hours, does she agree that some women Members could not return home in the evening because their children and family would be miles away in their constituency? Is she not talking from a London point of view? Does she agree that a compromise would be if we finished at 10 pm and at 7 pm on a Thursday, because then we would not return to our children or constituents as zombies and would give them the quality of life that they and us need?

Ms. Harman: I do not believe in the least that women are the weaker sex, but there is not an equal division of labour in the home. When women take most of the responsibility at home, the working patterns of men and women are different.
The hon. Lady mentioned the difference between hon. Members who serve London constituencies and those who

serve constituencies outside London. That was well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). If we started at the same time on Monday but moved forward the sitting times for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, those who live in London would be able to go home, and those who do not would be able to leave on Thursday at a more reasonable hour.
The Leader of the House said that this issue is not only about women Members of Parliament, but that the Committee will examine issues that affect the representation of women in the House. I hope that it will take that seriously, and that 13 men and two women will not decide that it is nothing to do with the representation of women in Parliament and that everything can carry on the same without the voice of women being heard in the House.
The second argument about changing the hours is that it will make the House more effective. If we were starting from scratch, no one would suggest sitting until the small hours. In the Tea Room and the corridors, one hears talk about "keeping it going" and about "going through the night". That is a lot of macho nonsense. Hon. Members do not show their commitment to their constituents by speaking for a hour and a half or by proving that they can stay awake until 3 am. They prove only that they have lost their sense of perspective, their contact with the real world, and that they cannot see the wood for the trees. I do not think that constituents are well represented by boss-eyed workaholics who have long since lost touch with ordinary life.
Many hon. Members admit privately that our hours are crazy, but it is a bit like the emperor's new clothes. They have not dared argue for a change in the hours for fear of being accused by some hon. Members of being lazy or of not being committed. I am grateful that at least that argument is out in the open.
The argument is not about changing or reducing the hours to give Members an easier life. It is about moving the hours forward, so opening up Parliament to women and making it more effective. The big question is whether the House, dominated now by tradition and men, is capable of making that change, so opening up Parliament to the next century and to more women.
I hope that the Select Committee will not say that it cannot be done because it is too difficult to balance the needs and interests of Members who represent northern and southern constituencies, to balance the interests of older and newer Members and to balance the interests of men and women Members. An opportunity now exists for change to be made. If the Committee has the political will, it will find a formula which as nearly as possible meets all those needs and interests.
I recall seven years ago standing at the Bar of the House next to a Conservative Member when this issue was being debated. "Harriet, you will be an old woman before any change takes place," he said. I am now seven years older. I hope that the Committee will prove him wrong.

Dame Jill Knight: I shall make three points. First, I stress the importance of never losing the right of the public to look round the House in the mornings. Any Member who doubts the interest that exists among people wishing to visit this place should visit


the Norman Porch any morning. Thousands of youngsters from schools and groups from Rotary clubs and churches gather there for a tour of the building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to say that those who advocate morning sittings would prevent all those people from having an opportunity to view the House while it is in Session. The atmosphere and feeling of the place is different when we are not sitting. As the representative of a constituency outside London, I would not come here in a recess to show parties round an empty, echoing Palace of Westminster, when the carpets are up and repairs are in progress.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Dame Jill Knight: I will not give way, as I am anxious to be brief.
Secondly, hon. Members who have asked in this debate that everything should be cut and dried and that we should know weeks ahead exactly what we are doing should accept that this is not a bank or a shop. This is not a normal place of work. We must cope with every kind of emergency, at home—for example, a train crash—and abroad. There might be a happening in Northern Ireland, when an immediate statement is demanded. Should there be two or three disasters, with the same number of statements having to be made in the House, it would be impossible to keep business compartmentalised, as some hon. Members have suggested.
Thirdly, let us never forget that we are sent here to speak for our constituents about matters of concern to them. Those who wish constantly to reduce our hours would make it impossible for us to carry out our duty to our constituents. That must never be allowed to happen. From what some hon. Members have said, one would imagine that we have to swallow lock, stock and barrel what the Committee recommends—if one can swallow locks, stocks and barrels. Surely to goodness we shall debate the Committee's proposals and we shall not have to accept them if we do not like them.
I welcome the establishment of the Committee. Perhaps we shall be able to go home a little earlier at night, but let us not ignore the difficulties of morning sittings, compartmentalised days planned far ahead and cutting ourselves off from our right and duty to speak up for our constituents.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I must of necessity be brief.
During the eight years that I have served in the House, I cannot recall having heard a more absurd or introspective debate than that tonight. We are hearing an establishment merely tinkering with the issues. It is not prepared to meet the challenge of becoming a Parliament ready for the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. We can debate moving our working hours backwards and forwards, but until we recognise that Westminster is sunk in tradition and history and is not prepared to mobilise itself to be like other modern Parliaments, there is no point in having a Select Committee such as that which is proposed. It will not deal with fundamental issues, such as proportional representation which is a constitutional right of our people. Nor will it consider the possibility of devolving power from this place to Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and, indeed, in the English regions.
If hon. Members are worried about the amount of work undertaken by this Parliament, one of the easiest solutions to the problem is to allow those of us who wish to have Parliaments in our own countries to have them and to deal with our affairs in our countries. That would release the poor souls who so often have to stay behind wearily to ensure that the Government have a majority against the rebellious Scots who, from the Opposition Benches, represent most of the Scottish people.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) placed great emphasis on the issues covered by other Select Committees. There is one Select Committee which is not costing the British taxpayer one penny and that is the Scottish Affairs Select Committee which the Government have not established. The Government are talking about establishing a Committee to consider the hours of the House, but they cannot establish one to deal with Scottish Affairs. The lack of one is costing the people of Scotland dear. We need to discuss issues that are vital to our country, such as the steel and fishing industries, the national health service and education, but we do not have that facility.
This debate is contemptuous of the Scottish people and their needs and, I suspect, of the Welsh people, the Northern Irish and many people from the English regions. This is a London debate about some hon. Members getting home to their families at night. We do not have that opportunity.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 28.

Division No. 204]
[1.54 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)






Latham, Michael
Redwood, John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevens, Lewis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, Rt Hon John
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Carr, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Cox, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Fyfe, Maria
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wilson, Brian


Grocott, Bruce



Harman, Ms Harriet
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in second paragraph, to leave out 'to adjourn from place to place'.—[Mr. Cryer.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Salmond: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be construed that those who will serve on the Select Committee have a financial interest in defeating the amendment and should be debarred from voting on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Every hon. Member is perfectly entitled to vote on the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not have been in order for those on the Select Committee to declare an interest before they voted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a procedural motion, and any hon. Member is entitled to record his vote.

The House having divided: Ayes 23, Noes 121.

Division No. 205]
[2.04


AYES


 Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cox, Tom
Golding, Mrs Llin


Dixon, Don
Grocott, Bruce


Durant, Sir Anthony
Haynes, Frank





Janman, Tim
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meale, Alan



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Terry Lewis.


Skinner, Dennis



NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Beith, A. J.
Latham, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lightbown, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maples, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Burns, Simon
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Butterfill, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carr, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carrington, Matthew
Moss, Malcolm


Cash, William
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Nicholls, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Norris, Steve


Chope, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Paice, James


Colvin, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Portillo, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Redwood, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Eggar, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Favell, Tony
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sims, Roger


Forth, Eric
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Freeman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Fyfe, Maria
Stern, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gregory, Conal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tredinnick, David


Harris, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Wallace, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wilson, Brian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Yeo, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hunt, Rt Hon David



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Michael
Mr. Greg Knight and


Jackson, Robert
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 14.

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Division No. 206]
[2.15 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baldry, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bellingham, Henry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael


Blackburn, Or John G.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Boswell, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lightbown, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bright, Graham
Maclean, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Butterfill, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maude, Hon Francis


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carr, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carrington, Matthew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cash, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Norris, Steve


Colvin, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Paice, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Patten, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Portillo, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Redwood, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Durant, Sir Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Eggar, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fallon, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sims, Roger


Forth, Eric
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Foster, Derek
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Freeman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Fyfe, Maria
Stern, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gregory, Conal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Grocott, Bruce
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hague, William
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Harris, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wallace, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)
Wilson, Brian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Yeo, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hunt, Rt Hon David



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jack, Michael
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Jackson, Robert
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Vaz, Keith


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Terry Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of items of business, the hours of sitting, and the arrangement of the Parliamentary year; and to make recommendations thereon:
That five be the quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
That the Committee have leave to confer and meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on procedure of that House for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses on any aspects of the Committee's order of reference which affect that House as well:
That Hilary Armstrong, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alistair Burt, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. David Harris, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Stern be members of the Committee:
That the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1986–87, in the last Parliament, relating to the use of time on the Floor of the House, be referred to the Committee: and
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You probably heard the note of derision from Conservative Members when they heard that there were only 14 votes against the motion. There are 15 members on the Committee that has been set up, and a majority of those members, who will travel all over the world before deciding on the sittings of the House, have never been present for the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

INFORMING AND CONSULTING EMPLOYEES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4466/91 relating to the establishment of European Works Councils; endorses the conclusions of the Madrid and Rome European Councils that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to the effects on job creation, the principle of subsidiarity and the diversity of national traditions and practices; supports the Government's view that the draft directive is incompatible with these conclusions; and endorses the Government's proposal for a Community initiative on employee involvement which might take the form of a Council recommendation or resolution.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Amendment proposed, leave out from second 'Councils' to end and add:—
`draws attention to the Government's consistent refusal to advance the interests of the British working people on any matter where the Social Charter and its action programme are concerned; and deplores the Government's refusal to play a constructive role in producing a Directive which will ensure that British workers have the same rights as their counterparts on the Continent.'.—[Mr. Haynes.]
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees), That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 108.

Division No. 207]
[2.27 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Beith, A. J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Carr, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cox, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Wallace, James


Dewar, Donald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dixon, Don



Foster, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:


Fyfe, Maria
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Grocott, Bruce



NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bellingham, Henry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lightbown, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, David


Bright, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Butterfill, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Maude, Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm


Colvin, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Norris, Steve


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Oppenheim, Phillip


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Paice, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Patnick, Irvine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Patten, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Redwood, John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fallon, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Alastair
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Gregory, Conal
Stern, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hague, William
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Harris, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Jack, Michael



Jackson, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Janman, Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 23.

Division No. 208]
[2.37 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Atkins, Robert
Knapman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bellingham, Henry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lightbown, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, David


Bright, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Butterfill, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Maude, Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Norris, Steve


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dorrell, Stephen
Paice, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patnick, Irvine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Eggar, Tim
Patten, Rt Hon John


Emery, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Redwood, John


Fallon, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Forth, Eric
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Freeman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gregory, Conal
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Ground, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stevens, Lewis


Hague, William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Harris, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Jack, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Jackson, Robert



Janman, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Carr, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cox, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Wallace, James


Dewar, Donald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dixon, Don



Foster, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Fyfe, Maria
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Golding, Mrs Llin

Question accoringly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4466/91 relating to the establishment of European Works Councils; endorses the conclusions of the


Madrid and Rome European Councils that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to the effects on job creation, the principle of subsidiarity and the diversity of national traditions and practices; supports the Government's view that the draft directive is incompatible with these conclusions; and endorses the Government's proposal for a Community initiative on employee involvement which might take the form of a Council recommendation or resolution.

Stobhill General Hospital, Glasgow

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Michael J. Martin: May I convey my thanks through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on a subject of great local importance—the future of Stobhill general hospital in my constituency?
The hospital is in the north end of Glasgow and serves not only my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is in the Chamber at this early hour. It also serves the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for Cumbernauld and Kilsvth (Mr. Hogg) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.
The staff, patients, patients' relatives and people who live in the community are attached to the hospital, which has served them since the first world war, but feel that its casualty department is not all that it could be. If someone suffers bone damage, he or she is sent to the Royal infirmary, which is about two or three miles down the road in the Townhead area of Glasgow. A patient can sit in casualty for a long time only to be told that he or she will be moved to the Royal Infirmary and will have to go through the same procedure again.
The Minister will know that in urban areas, where unemployment is high and there are many social problems, at least 40 per cent. of admissions are of people who prefer to be treated at the casualty department than by their general practitioner. That 40 per cent. consists of people who perhaps have an appendix problem, a stomach ulcer, a heart complaint or other serious problem. If the casualty department is run down, it is feared that the hospital will lose at least 40 per cent. of its admissions.
Stobhill, like every general hospital in Glasgow, has been told by Greater Glasgow health board to reduce the number of beds available to the public. The problem is exacerbated by chest patients from east Glasgow who were treated at Belvedere hospital but must now use Stobhill. We are grateful for Stobhill's expert chest consultants, but the Minister will know that unless extra beds are made available there will be severe pressure on the hospital and its highly professional staff who are trying to do a decent job for patients.
I was told only a few weeks ago that an elderly patient who was in the heart ward at Stobhill was woken at 2 am or 3 am and told that she and her bed would be moved to another ward because an acute patient had undergone surgery and needed that specialised ward. It is a sad state of affairs when our elderly, whose generation served us so well and who should be enjoying their retirement, must put up with that. They are shunted off and decanted—that is the best word I can use—in much the same way as a tenant is decanted from his or her home when a repair is necessary. I think that the Minister will agree that that is no way to treat an elderly person.
Doctors at the hospital are complaining about feeling guilty because, owing to the shortage of beds, they are having to put pressure on relatives, particularly those of elderly patients, to get patients discharged, when, in their


judgment, some of the patients should remain in hospital for a week or two longer. That is not helping morale among hospital staff or reassuring patients' relatives.
Six of Stobhill's wards are mixed, meaning that men and women share wards for 24 hours a day and toilet facilities. That restricts privacy, particularly for female patients who must be sure to be properly dressed all the time. Should a disruptive patient behave uneasonably, the whole ward could be turned upside down. My daughter Mary was in a mixed ward in Stobhill about a year ago. She had no objection to that and got on well with all the patients, but considering that some, especially female, patients could object to being in a mixed ward, I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.
The diabetic and rheumatology department at Ruchill has been moved to Stobhill. While we are pleased about that, severe pressure has been placed on that department, and on patients and their relatives because no additional beds have been provided.
The Minister will know that on many occasions I have raised the issue of the maternity facilities at Stobhill. It is believed that if we lose the two maternity wards, there could be a knock-on effect. It is feared that anaesthetists might not be needed and that nurse training could be so reduced that none might take place in the hospital. That, too, could affect the casualty department.
I was pleased when originally the Greater Glasgow health board announced that, as a replacement for the Royal maternity hospital in Townhead, consideration would be given to building a new maternity unit in the grounds of Stobhill, where acres of free land are available. Following representations from the medical faculty at the Royal maternity hospital and, to be fair, because of pressure from the local community and trade unions, the board reversed its decision, and the present proposal is now before the Minister.
The board intends to build a new maternity facility as part of phase one of the Royal infirmary. I believe that phase one has been in existence for about 10 years. The addition will, I understand, involve an additional floor being constructed as part of phase one. My information, which I cannot substantiate although perhaps the Minister can, is that the Common Services Agency has ruled out that technique because it would be structurally unsound. It is also possible that such a building could not be insured by any insurance company. If it cannot be built in the Royal infirmary in Townhead, why not revert to the Greater Glasgow health board's proposal and build it in Stobhill, where spacious grounds are available? If that cannot be done, I plead with the Minister to leave some maternity facility at Stobhill.
Although the people in the south end of my constituency, in Dennistown, may feel that the Royal infirmary is as handy as Stobhill, the Minister will remember that people in Torrance, Lennoxtown and Kilsyth depend on Stobhill. It is their nearest general hospital, and they would like a maternity facility in their area.
My time is limited, and the Minister needs time to reply, but I must state that there is great concern about Greater Glasgow health board's attitude in not approving vacancies at the hospital. The Minister will know that the health board must approve every vacancy before the

hospital can make an appointment. Young doctors are being interviewed for appointments commencing in August. Only a year or two ago, interviews for new medical posts took place three months prior to the appointment, which meant that we took the cream of the crop. There is no way that doctors will hang on until three weeks before an appointment if they can find a position elsewhere.
Only one chiropodist's vacancy in three has been approved. A renal dietician is needed to give kidney patients advice about their diet, but that vacancy has not been approved. Four vacancies for clerical staff have not been approved. It is also likely that three surgeons will retire, and I hope that those retirements will not provide an excuse to close down the accute surgery service at Stobhill.
I am proud of the hospital and the professional manner in which the staff and those who support them—the ambulance drivers and others—provide the patients with a very good quality of life. The service is second to none, and I ask merely that the Scottish Office, the Government and the Greater Glasgow health board give the hospital the support that it needs.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing the Adjournment debate and commend him for taking such an interest in Stobhill that we are discussing it now at 3 am. I am sure that his constituents will be impressed. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise this issue. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) are also here to take an interest in the deliberations.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: So am I.

Mr. Forsyth: I thought that my hon. Friend was here to observe the proceedings, not to participate.
Two issues arise: first, the future of Stobhill hospital; secondly, what services it should offer. I shall happily draw the points made by the hon. Member for Springburn about the hospital's day-to-day management to the attention of the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board and ensure that the hon. Gentleman is given a detailed response on each matter.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned primarily with the future of the hospital as a whole. He is afraid that recent changes proposed by Greater Glasgow health board for Stobhill may be the thin end of the wedge and that, now they are agreed and are being implemented, the next step will be a closure proposal for the whole hospital. The hospital provides a range of acute services—general medicine, surgery, orthopaedics, ophthalmology and so on —as well as extensive services for the continuing care of the elderly and a much-valued accident and emergency department.
I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, that there is a commitment to the future of the hospital. Within the past few days, I have received from Greater Glasgow health board a renewed assurance that its strategic planning for acute services is proceeding on the basis that a range of services will


continue to be provided by Stobhill hospital to the north of the city. I can say firmly that there is no proposal with Ministers to remove the provision of acute services from Stobhill or to close the hospital and, indeed, that Greater Glasgow health board is planning on the basis that a range of acute services will continue to be provided from Stobhill for the foreseeable future.
If further evidence were required that Stobhill has a future as an acute hospital, we need only look at the immediate plans of Greater Glasgow health board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board is in the middle of implementing a wide range of changes in the pattern of provision of its acute services. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to describe these as cuts. There have been no cuts in the national health service. The NHS has been the beneficiary of substantial additional investment. It is true that Greater Glasgow health board is rationalising its services and that that affects a large number of hospitals, Stobhill being one. Greater Glasgow health board and I are clear that those changes are designed to consolidate and improve the services provided by the hospital.
The board's proposals involve transferring to Stobhill from elsewhere the new specialty of renal medicine and an increase in the bed numbers for the specialties of general medicine, orthopaedics and accident and emergency. That is hardly what would happen if the board were planning to diminish the role of Stobhill or to close it.
The board's rationalisation of its acute services also involved substantial investment—more than £13 million over several years. Part of that is taking place at Stobhill. Greater Glasgow health board has firm plans to spend some £500,000 at Stobhill to build a new day surgery complex. That will help the hospital to meet the changing requirements for health care. Again, it would hardly seem credible for the board to be planning such investment if the closure of the hospital were on the agenda.
The hon. Gentleman said that his constituents were worried about the practice of transferring accident victims requiring orthopaedic treatment to Glasgow royal infirmary. That is true. The orthopaedic service is provided by surgeons who work between Stobhill hospital and Glasgow royal infirmary. The practice is for patients who are taken to the accident and emergency department at Stobhill to receive whatever immediate treatment they require there. Once their condition has been stabilised, those patients who require orthopaedic treatment are taken to Glasgow royal infirmary. That is because the major orthopaedic trauma surgical expertise is based at the infirmary. The board takes the view—reasonably, I think —that to locate this at both hospitals would simply dilute the specialism. I am told that this pattern of service has been in operation for several years and that it works well.
Questions arise about the range of specialties that is to be provided at Stobhill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Greater Glasgow health board has proposed the closure of the maternity unit at Stobhill. I thought that it might be helpful if I were to say a few words about the background.
The five Greater Glasgow health board maternity units vary in quality. Two of their maternity units at Stobhill and Glasgow Royal maternity hospital—more popularly known as Rotten Row—are housed in buildings that date back to the turn of the century. What was considered then to be appropriate accommodation, design and provision in terms of fabric and layout is clearly no longer acceptable. The continued provision of maternity services must now at the very least be subject to question and review, taking

account of changes in the pattern of demand. The health board has done that, and, as part of its review of maternity provision, the Greater Glasgow health board has taken account of the registrar general's population projections to the year 2000.
Based on his findings and taking account of population movement, and also allowing for a margin of error at what must be, by its very nature, an imprecise science, the board has concluded that 371 staffed beds in 1996 and 337 by the year 2000 will be more than sufficient provision. That compares with its present provision of 402 staffed beds across five maternity units. All the board's calculations, projections and estimates are based on the highest use made per bed within its maternity units.
Faced with that position, the board embarked upon an extensive public consultation towards the end of 1989. 'The board issued a consultative document which proposed that for the north and east of Glasgow, the present maternity services provided from the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital and at Stobhill maternity hospital be replaced by an 84-bed unit to be constructed at Stobhill general.
The consultations, which were completed on 28 February 1990, generated considerable adverse reaction from individuals and organisations from the east of Glasgow.
Having considered all the arguments received, particularly those forwarded by all the consultants within this specialty in north and east Glasgow, the board decided that Stobhill maternity unit and the Glasgow royal maternity hospital should close and that the services they have provided to date should transfer to a new-built unit of 120 beds at Glasgow royal infirmary.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Common Services Agency and whether that unit was planned to be built on top of an existing building. I understand that the board's proposals are for the new maternity unit to be situated in the car park and not on the site to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The board further plans a second phase reorganisation to provide a new maternity unit at the Queen Mother's hospital, Yorkhill. Those proposals are now being considered by my officials. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been taken, and I hope that I will be in a position to announce any decision in the near future.
However, the arguments for retaining maternity services at Stobhill do not appear to be strong. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Stobhill maternity unit is housed in accommodation that dates from 1903. Despite regular refurbishment, the quality of accommodation is not impressive. Although the fabric of the building could be improved, it is not possible within the existing buildings at Stobhill to meet all the minimum space standards set down for maternity units and wards. The main departments of the special care baby unit and the labour wards are separated and relatively distant from ante and post-natal wards.
More importantly, the unit is separated from the main support services of the hospital. The building and its fabric has major physical shortcomings which could not easily be rectified. The board's clear conclusion is that this would not be appropriate and that the investment should take place at Glasgow royal infirmary.
I am well aware of the affection, loyalty and esteem in which Stobhill maternity unit is held by many people in Glasgow and beyond. This was most recently


demonstrated to me through the 700-signature petition lodged in support of the unit. I am also aware of the so-called "Hands Off Stobhill" campaign. I hope that what I have said today assures the hon. Member that the Greater Glasgow health board is are adopting a "Hands On Stobhill" policy.
I cannot offer the hon. Member an assurance that maternity services will continue at Stobhill. As I have

described, this question raises a range of difficult and important issues which are currently being considered and which I hope will be decided soon. But on the general issue of the future of the hospital, I am in no doubt that the hon. Member and his constituents can be assured that the board is planning to retain it for the foreseeable future, and it will play an important part in improving the quality of care for the people in the city of Glasgow and beyond.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock.